I'm a chemist. I have worked in a synthetic lab for over 11 years. Making these molecules that people like Dave Farina put on a slide and talk about, have no idea how difficult it is to actually synthesize those molecules. Listen to Dr. Tour. He knows what he's talking about.
*_"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him."_* - (Origin of quote is unconfirmed; yet, is widely attributed to Louis Pasteur, Founder of microbiology and immunology)
Thankfully, I have a bachelors in chemistry. Thank you for these detailed explanations. Makes total sense. Atheists clearly are the ones doing science gymnastics.
@@paularnold3745Yours is really the money quote. There isn’t enough time available for randomness to stumble upon even one complex protein. Worse, the solution space is isolated and very sparse, so you don’t need to get lucky once then incrementally get the rest.
@@DocReasonablePhysics is not random but the premise of standard evolutionary theory is based on randomness. The biologists frame doesn’t match physics. The evolutionary frame has assumed too much. According to physics, nothing could have ever been different there are no accidents.
24:00 If the surfactants were designed by the scientist, then this is Intelligent Design. In fact, virtually everything that the OOL scientists appear to be doing is Intelligent Design; then claiming Methodological Naturalism.
@@patldennis The method in which fireplaces are started is so drastically different from non-human made forest fires that indeed, they speak nothing to the natural at all. Your analogy quite neatly sums up how in the dark said OOL researchers are.
@@patldennisfireplaces show that they are designed. No fire place ever built it self from its basic components. I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.
Are you trying to suggest experiment can never work, because experiment will never be the same as natural phenomena? Seems like that's not how things have worked up until now.
"What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated: that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But the machinery by which the cell translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. *Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation.* This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code. Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics." -- Sir Karl Popper "The scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion -- that everything in the universe happened by chance -- would violate the very objectivity of science itself." --Wernher von Braun
I am a HUGE fan for James tour! That said he blew it in his "debate" with Dave Farina. I minute Farina called hm a liar Jame should have demanded the moderator (what a bad joke he was) have Farina apologize. When we wouldn't (couldn't name calling is what he does) James should have walked off and told Farina "You'll be hearing from my lawyers. But then James Tour is a MUCH NICER person than I. James Tour when in expecting a Debate. Dave Farina went in wanting an (on line) Flame War. Farina's major problem is James Tour is a Christian. He represents THE WORST on Atheism On Line. /rant # 736,912
I am not a scientist. I am a layperson. However, I am a critical thinker and, I think, blessed with a little common sense. I believe that what Dr Tour has exposed in the field of origin of life studies in relation to what borders on, if not outright, dishonesty as it relates to "peer-reviewed" publishing and "confirmation" of scientific findings by their peers is not confined to this area of science. I believe it is widespread in the sciences. I believe ideology, money and other influences have corrupted several other areas such as climatology, medical sciences, etc... I would love to hear Dr Tour's and Dr Meyer's comments on that.
15:30 *_“I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in a Letter to Asa Gray June 18, 1857)
@@hurrikanehavok7313 If you are talking about Dave Farina, what has he been able to debunk? If you actually study what Dave Farina has presented, you will quickly fond that it is not what he attributes it to be. I found Dave Farina to be a problematic science educator and unfamiliar with the various subjects that he purports to be educating on. There are various science education channels out there that have some good material. But many of them (especially Dave Farina's channel) is quite poor and quite misleading in their presentations.
@@hillstrong715I don't see the problem with Farina. Yes, he is a dick. But all he does is listen to James' objections, go to the academic search engine, look for the study that James didn't bother to look for because he's not really interested in science. Then Farina reads papper and explains it to him and James screams because he doesn't know anything and he isn't interested in knowing anything. The proof that James doesn't care about science but is actually interested in yelling at scientists is that he only publishes his objections on his blogs because none of them would pass a papper review.
I'm an organic chemist, and I've been following Tour from the beginning of this whole thing for year or more....there is so much ignorance of people arguing how this is all so easy that have no idea how complicated this chemistry is. Tour is 100% correct on ALL points he makes, and if you want to say otherwise please explain the chemistry to me
Ist commented is correct. It's not ALL chemistry and indeed it is much more complicated but it seems strange that creationists who subscribe to some sort of vitalism try to boil this topic down to solely chemistry.
@patldennis if it's real difficult for them to "create" life in a lab under the right conditions with them doing all the work and and being careful with it, how the heck can it happen in a chaotic early earth, by itself, with no outside agent to guide the process, regardless of the location where it happened.
@patldennis That is not what was said by Dr. Tour in the video. He stated, quite clearly, that according to the origin of life literature, a conducive chemical state is a necessary precursor to the biological aspect of cell development. According to the accepted early earth models, there was no biological influence to be had. Therefore, elemental chemistry is the only pathway to origin of life, according to a materialistic worldview. Manipulation of base materiel other than heating and mixing, moves outside of a materialistic world view and into the realm of intelligent design.
Probably you dont understand that “geological properties” are based on chemistry. If you are invoking some magical properties of early earth, that we cannot see today, than probaby you have some problems. I am also organic chemist working in the industry and I agree with Tour 100%.
Intelligent scientists that claim random chances result in life, while they control every step in the process. Both cognitive dissonance and hilarious at the same time.
The scientists themselves aren't the issue; I think they understand that randomness isn't at play. Considering the paper's context, Bruce was aware that the process needed guidance or intentional design. The manipulation of scientific experiments to fit a certain narrative is something I've witnessed repeatedly. My firm belief is that most scientists are genuinely committed to uncovering the truth, without any additional agenda. The real problem lies with academic frauds who distort scientific experiments and the image of scientists to suit their narrative. I've observed this pattern happening repeatedly. i think to counter this trend, it's crucial for scholars to proactively disprove and reject these individuals publicly, possibly through platforms like RUclips and other social media channels. social media isa very powerful tool, however Although social media is a potent tool, lacademics underutilise it, possibly due to their engagement in more crucial responsibilities.
16:00 *_“When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in his letter to G. Bentham May 22, 1863)
Im not a chemist and i get lost when trying to keep up with understanding. BUT....... I understand enough to realize that these things dont "just happen" and that time is not on the side of evolution. I tried telling that to that "professor youtuber" and i calked him out using his very own logic......and guess what he did? He insulted me, had his guy ghost my comments and got RUclips to block me for using the exact same language he used. Instead of answering me.....he got rid of me. Its sad that people actually think he has common sense.
Yea, he got angry and tried to insult me also, used foul language and acted like a child, so I wasnt surprised one bit when he started right out of the gate, trying to insult Dr. Tour, a real professor, in their debate.
My biology teacher in high school, a creationist, asked a question in class. “Give me some examples of mathematics” Hands went up. Students answered. Addition. Subtraction. Multiplication. Division. Then more advanced answers. Trigonometry. Calculus. Quadratic equations. Then the teacher said. “What happens to mathematics if the number ‘1’ is shown not to exist?” One student tentatively put her hand up and said “Mathematics itself, ceases to exist” “Correct” says the teacher. Then the teacher says something really profound. “The same way mathematics ceases to exist if the number ‘1’ doesn’t exist, the theory of Evolution cannot exist without the number ‘1’ In this case, that number ‘1’ is abiogenesis” Even my chemistry teacher said that one day, it may be possible for a chemist to directly influence the creation of a living cell. However, he pointed out that simply placing organic chemicals into a life-friendly environment and hoping that something that constitutes ‘life’ would occur, would be impossible. It would need intervention. Ironically, the chemistry teacher was a lifelong advocate of Evolution! .
Urmm that's not true, cos once you got life going you can evolve it. For example there's so many different dogs out there. Small ones. Big ones. Short tail long tail. That's because they were artificially evolved by people.
@marioluigi9599 I think you've missed the point. Read the comment again. It's saying without step 1 - formation of biological molecules into cells all the rest is completely irrelevant- infact impossible!
@@marioluigi9599 But irrespective of size or other non-essential features, all dogs are one species and derived from wolves. There is no evolving of speciation here.
@@jameswhite7997 You should be asking: what happens to mathematics if we admit that we _don't know_ how and why the number one exists? (The answer is: nothing happens to mathematics if we admit that we don't know how and why the number one exists. We relegate that question to the future and get on with other questions which we _can_ answer.)
Roman mathematics lacked the number zero. It was just a different type of mathematics and it worked for them but let's remember that mathematics is just an abstract language. But in the Arabic mathematics that we use, there are infinite numbers between zero and one.
Excellent. Much of this discussion occurs at a level beyond my ability to understand. Compared to the participants, I am a slack jawed Neanderthal with a sloping forehead. However, somehow, they manage to present the material in such a manner that I can at least grasp the concepts. I really appreciate that.
Many cdesign proponentsists (myself included) consider Neanderthals to be merely another race of homosapien rather than an inferior and unintelligent subspecies: "As for Neanderthals, though they have been stereotyped as bungling and primitive, if a Neanderthal walked down the street, you probably wouldn't notice. Wood and Collard note, "skeletons of H. neanderthalensis indicate that their body shape was within the range of variation seen in modern humans." Washington University paleoanthropologist Erik Trinkaus maintains that Neanderthals were no less intelligent than contemporary humans, and argues, "They may have had heavier brows or broader noses or stockier builds, but behaviorally, socially and reproductively they were all just people." University of Bordeaux archaeologist Francesco d'Errico agrees: "Neanderthals were using technology as advanced as that of contemporary anatomically modern humans and were using symbolism in much the same way." Though controversial, hard evidence backs these claims. Anthropologist Stephen Molnar explains that "the estimated mean size of [Neanderthal] cranial capacity (1,450 cc) is actually higher than the mean for modern humans (1,345 cc)." One paper in Nature suggested, "the morphological basis for human speech capability appears to have been fully developed" in Neanderthals. Indeed, Neanderthal remains have been found associated with signs of culture including art, burial of their dead, and complex tools-including musical instruments like the flute. While dated, a 1908 report in Nature reports a Neanderthal type skeleton wearing chain mail armor. Archaeologist Metin Eren said, regarding toolmaking, "in many ways, Neanderthals were just as smart or just as good as us." Morphological mosaics-skeletons showing a mix of modern human and Neanderthal traits-suggest "Neanderthals and modern humans are members of the same species who interbred freely." Indeed, scientists now report Neanderthal DNA markers in living humans, supporting proposals that Neanderthals were a sub-race of our own species. As Trinkaus says regarding ancient Europeans and Neanderthals, "[W]e would understand both to be human. There's good reason to think that they did as well." Darwin skeptics continue to debate whether we are related to Neanderthals and Homo erectus, and evidence can be mounted both ways. The present point, however, is this: Even if we do share common ancestry with Neanderthals or erectus, this does not show that we share ancestry with any non-human-like hominins. As noted, Leslie Aiello observes, "Australopithecines are like apes, and the Homo group are like humans." According to Siegrid Hartwig-Scherer, the differences between human-like members of Homo such as erectus, Neanderthals, and us reflect mere microevolutionary effects of "size variation, climatic stress, genetic drift and differential expression of [common] genes." Whether we are related to them or not, these small-scale differences do not show the evolution of humans from non-human-like or ape-like creatures." Moreland, J.P. et al. Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, Wheaton, Crossway, 2017, pp. 470-472.
Science used to be about searching for truth in God's creation in order to understand Him more deeply and glorify His name. Science now is about manipulating the truth in order to discredit the existence of God. How far we have fallen when people choose lies over truth because their itching ears desire it.
I can agree with you and add that science has also become the target of fanaticism of many ideologies and in this case of those who feel threatened by the scientific theory of biological evolution and the chemical evolution that gave rise to life.
Sigmund Freud thought that if you searched deeply enough, you should reach the soul. That was an interest of his in studying the subconscious. According to Bruno Bettelheim, Freud's translations from German to English ignored this detail@@jrssutherland
flunkee dave clearly was leaning heavily on the ignorance of the audience in that debate in order to sidestep the monumental challenges OOL research must overcome. His open disdain for his own fan base was funny.
As a scientist, please refer me to information or You Tube video explaining the stages of the universe after the Big Bang that explains the generations of stars needed to create iron (supernova) then that iron travels the universe & is absorbed into a new star that becomes a neutron star, that then that neutron star collides with another neutron star to create gold and other heavy elements that travel the universe, and then travels the universe to then coalesce into our earth, with out own solar system, for us to later find. Are there multiple generations of exploding stars needed to create the elements of our earth? How long does each generation need? How long does the exploded materials from each star need to travel the universe to coalesce into another star? Is the universe really old enough for all the needed steps and traveling, to create the earth as it exists?
Every code presupposes a convention or egreement, which in turn is the result of intelligence and intentionality. Consequently, no code without a mind! For instance, there is no material connection between a word and its meaning, and therefore a word can mean different things.
Let me give you a tip: here in Brazil we have types on youtube that are an exact match for that Farina guy there. They might have been trained in this atheist sophistry art by the same groups, with money coming from the same powerful sources, aiming at the same goals. Just saying.
They are. There is a systemic push globally for people to start seeing themselves as soulless sacks of meat rather than spiritual but deeply flawed people with a divine spark made in the image of God.
I appreciate you guys, Stephen Meyer and James Tour for your excellent treasury of extensive knowledge and work. And thanks for the valuable info. Keep it all coming. Your intellectual honesty and reliable research is proven and evident.
@@troywalstra9300James Tour went to Harvard recently for an event. None of those people agree with him and you can hear it in thir questions during the discussion period. A room full.
I've noticed the competence of Christians in these discussions on YT has improved greatly in the past decade. Unfortunately, the anti-theists have gotten less competent to the point that they don't understand the argument. They sound like "Prof" Dave.
around 4.48 life is spirit energy. In physical bodies this spirit energy has to be present for life to function. When absent the physical body is dead and not alive although the chemistry is still there.
Life is not chemical nor material in anyway. In mammals, it is called soul or in Hebrew, nephews. It is spiritual in nature, it is not eternal life spirit, but it is spiritual in nature
Even if the chemistry was figured out. Then you would have to figure out how to make it alive. A dead cell has everything for life chemically. except life.
inversely proportional to the odds that blind, unguided, piecemeal, physicochemical happenstance could stumble upon an encoded informational process requiring transcription, translation, editing, and correction, i.e., the ribosomal synthesis of proteins. Both require faith. Throw in love, beauty and a whole plethora of other evidence, i could never be an atheist again
Why GOD is incapable to do so, could you elaborate for your concept of GOD. It is simple for thinking creatures without prejudice, and not for a person who is not able to think deeply after analyzing possibility.
Awesome Dr. Tour is so smart that he needs someone to slow him down and get him to explain what he is saying in common sense normal man terms lol. I have had to stop and look up much of what Dr Tour says as it was beyond me. Thank you guys
Outstanding video - - - If you are unwilling to believe in the Creator of Everything; God the Father and His Son; Jesus then you are doomed to be deceived into believing in evolution and ETs (aliens) as our progenitors…. God help us all not to fall victim to this “great deception” in the name of Jesus, Amen! (Psalm 14:1 KJV, Matthew 24:24 KJV, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 KJV and to avoid deception John 3:16 KJV)
It is well understood that most of academia outwardly rejects God. Educators influence the hearts and minds of young adults, teaching that mindless, random events are responsible for life and the universe. But today's scientific discoveries reveal an Author who engineered and fine-tuned every detail of creation, inventing the language of mathematics. Axis of Beginning is a stage play that is an entertaining and educational tool to help combat these educators' wrong teachings. “The earth is where the Biblical story begins. Salvation is what His story is about, and Jesus, the Word of God, is the story’s hero.”
Brother, "a liar will be found out, and a false witness will not be held guiltless." Leave Dave Farina to himself. Just assert the truth in love and continue to explain and show the science, and the truth will gain ascendancy. Love in our Messiah
Ah, come on, the discussion with Dave Farina was a disaster for Tour. And indeed as Meyer suggested: Look for yourself. Tour was reduced to a crying fool.
Hi, I'm a retired antibody-chemist, not a big-shot synthetic organic chemist like Dr. Tour. This is a very clear, well-explained video. Now please make another video and explain the answer to this follow-up question: _Why Does It Matter Whether or Not Hands-On Chemistry Experiments Can Simulate A Prebiotic Earth?_ Or to put the same question another way: _WHO CARES???_ And most of all: _Why does anyone think that the fact that we can't simulate a prebiotic earth implies or indicates anything at all about any spiritual, religious, or Biblical question?_ Why do some people (including Dr. Tour) yearn so ardently to take the "We don't know how [x] happened" and put the name "God" onto our lack of knowledge??? What's the point? Who benefits?
The big idea is the dichotomy of abiogenesis in primordial conditions and micro biological evolution. Not the same. Chemical biogenesis should be able to describe all chemical processes in sequence and with a timeline.
*_The sheer Impossibility of life forming in the first place_* is a prime example of the handiwork of God. And this leads to the unavoidable question: *_What if God only did this on one planet?_* If that were the case, then we would have an *_Empty Universe!_* No Klingons for our future Captain Kirk. "For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Nobody questions the difficulty of explaining abiogenesis. I suggest reading the work of Nick Lane to get an idea of just how much more complex the endeavour is than even these guys explain. However being unable to explain something and admitting we don't know how it happened is worlds away from inventing god. If we apply the same reasoning to "god" we simply say that as you can't explain why god exists and as you can't explain why he is eternal or explain any of "his" other attributes and motives. Then your failure to prove a single iota of his existence or his genesis allows us dismiss your god of the gaps until you can reproduce your god in a lab .
Is Tour's complaint more about the squandering of research dollars, the trivialization of belief in a creator, or the contravention of the scientific method? To be fair, Jack Szostak of Harvard for example has made it very clear in recent videos that little true knowledge has been gained, and is not pretending otherwise, whereas, Prof Dave who we love and admire for his extremely helpful videos seems a bit overextended in this light.
I’ve never heard mentioning the squandering of research dollars. What he mentioned is the lying about what has been accomplished. You cannot tell from Tour’s words whether he is a theist or not. Stephen Meyer is a Christian.
Steve, and James, I'm asking this question because U both seem to be very good at Science across the board, do U know about Bonding Gase's Oxygen and Hydrogen Debunks Newtons Gravity ?
Question for another video: if the origin of life part of evolution is refuted, what are we left with ... does it become a kind of flat earth type of theory ... Newtonian physics vs Einsteinian or ....? Scientists do know much about genetics, mutations and such, and we know how selective breeding techniques have given us the Labrador, poodle and Doberman, and we see it in our own fellow human beings. So what domain of usefulness will it recede into? If purpose is not intentionally left out of the scientific method, what might we find?
I applaud you guys' efforts. I recommend, though, for the sake of effectiveness, that you decide before you make a video who you want to reach, who you're speaking to, and then don't muddy the water by speaking to other scientists. You lose me, an enthusiastic follower., so I know you must be losing many others who you want to reach. I think Tour has information that is essential to the debate, but it isn't often enough being given in an efficacious manner. Save the more precise scientific discussion for scientific papers or for debates with other scientists. I love what Tour has to say, I just hope he doesn't make me work so hard to hear him or go away wishing it could have been clearer.
Following these two has truly debunked most of my formal education from sixth grade through college. The whole evolutionary, primordial ooze nonsense was drilled into our developing brains as factual. Perhaps my teachers and professors received the same education before they became teachers. I was in sixth grade in 1966/67. I enjoyed every science class I took. To find out at my age now that it was mostly theoretical 29:16 fiction, not fact, makes me feel like I wasted so much time. Yet, I am thankful to have Dr’s Meyer and Tour explain it to me.
There's not a single textbook approved to be used by schools that shows this supposed "primordial ooze" claim. You are repeating the nonsense straw man of James Tour. Also shocker: a lot of things taught in the 1960's turned out to be wrong. Duh????
The issue with hands-on chemistry somehow successfully simulating this is that it would have to simulate it RANDOMLY. Which is impossible. By trying to even simulate it -- even if successfully -- we're introducing the ONE factor that makes it all possible: US. WE are playing God. WE are setting the stage. WE are assembling the puzzle pieces. By trying to simulate it, we're essentially PROVING there was an ultimate designer at play. Which is ultimately at the heart of even trying to prove this (by proving it, we're saying we don't even need a God to make it possible.... However, proving it does the exact opposite.).
If some day( far in the future) scientists build life it will only prove what we already know. Intelligence manipulates perameters to achieve logical functionality. That is all intelligence has ever proven. Intelligence creates.
Yes it does! It is our scientific knowledge that says no mechanisms and laws that we see can account for the creation of life. Similarly science says matter cannot be created from nothing, based on all our observations of a real universe . So we logically must conclude there must be something outside the universe that created it and also created life. Somethings that is outside of the observed universe, not composed of matter time and space. God. A mathematician might think of it as another dimension, but it is also clear that it is a mind with intelligence which designs, for example the DNA code. I hope this helps
@@bobdalton2062it doesn’t have to be outside matter and space it could be a part of it, we just don’t know about it. “Anther dimension” isn’t really outside everything it’s just expands what everything is.
imagine if you found a toyota corrola in a galaxy far far away. would you say, perfectly possible from randomness? after all a toyota is an assemblage of atoms
Disconnect the message from any religious agenda. This presentation does a better job than most at doing so. For thousands of years abusive low IQ people used the name of God in vain. Many people who think they are Atheists are actually just rational thinkers protecting their minds from control freaks and explanatory fictions. I know there is God; but every person has to come to that understanding by way of their own life’s journey. God set this reality up that way for a reason. When religious nuts and control freaks usurp the message it will fall on deaf ears.
You wrote, Disconnect the message from any religious agenda." Too late. These guys have already connected it. You wrote, "This presentation does a better job than most at doing so." Just because they do a good job of trying to hide the religious agenda, that doesn't mean it isn't there. Anyway, these guys have already explicitly articulated and described their religious agenda. Just because they don't happen to mention it in some particular example of them promoting the science denialism of their religion-based pseudoscience thinking, that doesn't change the fact that their religious agenda is what drives it. Indeed, the very fact that James Tour and Stephen Meyer appear together here is literally another example of the particular religious agenda they share.
There's nothing wrong with the thinking involved in these origin of life claims in the current modern context. It's perfectly consistent with the level of thinking that allows a person to accept the theory of evolution without question.
It is evident that highly complex structures like even the simplest cell cannot happen randomly. It does not require much discussion. But the origin of life does not have to be that complex. It does not have to be based on DNA or RNA. Any structure capable of replicating itself can be a start later evolving into DNA-based cells. Are such self-replication structures possible? This is the proper question to answer.
But what is not evident is the question whether there can be simpler "semi-life" chemistry that could be the pre-cursor of life and that is what is being asked by these scientists.
For example take the history and evolution of computer programming. Do you still see punched cards? Do you still see floppy drives or tape drives? Have you ever seen anyone still programming with machine language? In evolution, sometimes the very things that started it are the ones that becomes obsolete the fastest.
@@pulsar22 Please keep away from using the any analogy to computer programming, you do not appear to understand anything about the history or the subject matter when you make your comments. Choose some other analogy if you want to use any analogy.
Stephen, we met years ago at one of Dr. Missler's functions in Couer d'Alene, Idaho. Has anybody looked into the Morgellan's phenomenon? This is merely a hunch, but my hunch is that this may be a preliminary attempt to construct a self-folding protein; skipping the amino acid necessity. I'm not saying it's possible to form life in that manner; I'm merely suggesting that looking further into the fibers that have this artificial life component in each of them, may be evidence of an attempt to at least see what might take place when given a host to assist the inducement of that attempt to create a life form from a simple structure.
Hi I wish to address this question to Stephen Meyer, can you say something about plate tectonics and stratigraphy in relation to the Cambrian Explosion missing fossils question? Thanks.
"Condensation reactions that must eliminate water are thermodynamically unfavorable in aqueous bulk, and yet are ubiquitous and essential to life. In addition, peptide bond formation will not occur between two amino acids in their zwitterionic form, the predominate state in a bulk aqueous environment."
if the way it works best if either right left, or left right then its going to be either this or that, maybe ask why there isnt both at the same time is a better question, but if there is a difference it will grow because as diversity grows and consumption of biological material produced in more and more different other organisms increases it becomes more likley that an organism with right left can safely consume a molecule or protein from a right left organism, because of the common ancestry and the similarities in how the two organisms processes different chiral molecules. so lets just say that i think that if you tested all bio molecules and proteins ect, on humans today, its likley that the opposite chirality molecule is dangerous than the common chirality molecule, same would go for early life, they could at some stage dvelop a random difference and whether it happens at the stage of autocatalisys, or durign the development of the first early life itself, after its inception as cells and such, the difference in right left and left right would probably still be a self reinforcing disparity. at least it completely plausible, and i dont understand how you can deny that.
no you dont have to explain why there is one Chirality vs the other. you could flip the entire thing and have it the other way, but then its still right for one type and left for the other, or the opposite, why isnt it right right, or left left , or random, thats what has to be explained, and explaining why all of those fail is easy, its like reflecting the shape of a key, it just doesnt fit the lock anymore, you have to reflect both of them or none of them.
These guys seem really preoccupied with talking about Dave Farina. Considering he’s not an OoL researcher or even a professor, I fail to see what talking about how he doesn’t know chemistry or can’t read papers will accomplish.
Because he has large audience. James addressed this same question multiple times in the previous three videos. Also Dave came after Tour when he criticised OoL research and now Tour is responding.
@@Matt-by2bf I plan on making variations of this comment for as many times as James talks about Dave. Seems like James needs to get his priorities straight
He did not do it. He proposed it because it is the logical direction to follow once you know biology. Although Oparín was not the first to point in that direction, it was Charles Darwin.
Is Dave really the biggest threat facing OoL? Ignoring the fact that he's a RUclipsr who isn't even claiming to be a real professor, you've never talked about Dave until he made videos about you specifically even though he's been talking about OoL for about 5 years now.
@@tebogomore6673I'm asking why does James care so much about what Dave thinks now that Dave makes videos about him even though Dave was talking about OoL for years before he made his first video on James if these videos are truly about shining a new light on OoL research
It can be very simple. Dave has enough followers to make it worth facing him on RUclips. Because creationism always looks for imaginary enemies. It is evident that Jame is not interested in science, especially if it has anything to do with the theory of evolution. James is a Ken Ham with a degree.
@@tebogomore6673 "above his punching level?" Which I guess is supposed to explain why Farina trounced the screaming idiot Tour in the debate. I'm NOT saying Farina is a good debater. Some of his presentation was very good - but other aspects of his presentation were, how to put it mildly, over-the-top antagonism. But the material he presented was excellent, while all Tour did was deliberately ignore the research material Farina presented - the exact research results Tour was trying to pretend doesn't exist - and all Tour did was scream "CLUELESS!" a few dozen times to ignore the research results. Farina's post-debate analysis in which he went into even more detail on the research articles, was priceless.
@@raulhernannavarro1903 You wrote, "James is a Ken Ham with a degree." Or, James Tour is a Stephen Meyer, with a degree in science. Or, James Tour is an Andrew Snelling, except his degree is in chemistry. Interestingly enough, Snelling has actually published some genuine scientific research in professional geology literature - and his research is consistent with the geological antiquity of the earth ("Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?"
Two questions. Chirality and the right-hand rule. Is it possible that chirality is necessary for the movement of magnetic/electric potential in a retain direction along molecular chains, and that’s why homo-chirality is so critical to life-sustaining polymers, molecules? Second, have you heard of EZ, Exclusion Zone, water? Apparently, when up against a hydrophobic boundary, water self-organizes into a hydrophobic semi-crystalline state when exposed to light in the infrared portion of the EM spectrum. Could this phenomenon explain how non-aqueous chemistry can happen inside aqueous cells?
Your first question might be answered by CISS (Chiral Induced Spin Selectivity). It sends the reaction down the most energetically favourable pathway thus reducing the “friction” of any reaction hence minimising thermal output.
Dear Mr Meyer, I just watched your interview with Piers Morgan about existence of GOD and I am glad to hear a man in science could logically explain why there must be an Intelligent Designer and Creator. Thank you for your contribution and may GOD bless you. However I need to point out that the Omnipotent, Sublime Creator as such cannot be any less than Omniscient. Therefore GOD Almighty never took a risk when He created the human race. In fact HE was absolutely aware of each and every individual's final destiny. The creation of human beings was followed by their acceptance of a test which was offered to them after we humans failed to side with GOD when Satan claimed he could be a god besides the Almighty and he could run a kingdom independent of GOD. Some of us humans got carried away by the majority and didn't think hard before accepting the test and GOD knew those very few humans deserved a final chance, as a result the entire human race was created or recreated but in another dimension and having their memories wiped out. That's how none of us can remember what happened in the high society but we are given Scriptures and guidance to be reminded of why we are on this planet. Satan as a temporary god on earth is being put to the test, he has failed miserably in his godhood. Humans are choosing idols instead of GOD alone and suffering the consequence of that disastrous choice because by not submitting to GOD alone we lose the protection GOD has promised over His righteous servants and we expose ourselves to Satan's incompetence in running his kingdom, planet Earth. I would like to share a link that would provide more detailed information, mathematical scientific proof for the brief into above and more, God willing. www.quranalone.com/#/ God bless and peace.
If you're gonna talk about Dave for talking about OoL, why not talk about Derek Muller who had Richard Dawkins as a guest? Why not make fun of Crash Course or Hank Green for a video he made about intelligent design being religious?
God bless Prof. Stephen Meyer and Prof. James Tour. And the late A.E. Wilder-Smith.
I'm a chemist. I have worked in a synthetic lab for over 11 years. Making these molecules that people like Dave Farina put on a slide and talk about, have no idea how difficult it is to actually synthesize those molecules. Listen to Dr. Tour. He knows what he's talking about.
*_"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him."_* - (Origin of quote is unconfirmed; yet, is widely attributed to Louis Pasteur, Founder of microbiology and immunology)
Bruh. Pasteur was a lying hack and quack. Bechamp proved it unquestionably.
Thankfully, I have a bachelors in chemistry. Thank you for these detailed explanations. Makes total sense.
Atheists clearly are the ones doing science gymnastics.
Yes, Atheists have more faith in randomness than Theists have in God!
@@paularnold3745Yours is really the money quote. There isn’t enough time available for randomness to stumble upon even one complex protein. Worse, the solution space is isolated and very sparse, so you don’t need to get lucky once then incrementally get the rest.
@@PeaceTrainUSA-1000
You are underestimating the amount of time we could have.
Physics is not random, creatards.
@@DocReasonablePhysics is not random but the premise of standard evolutionary theory is based on randomness. The biologists frame doesn’t match physics. The evolutionary frame has assumed too much.
According to physics, nothing could have ever been different there are no accidents.
24:00 If the surfactants were designed by the scientist, then this is Intelligent Design. In fact, virtually everything that the OOL scientists appear to be doing is Intelligent Design; then claiming Methodological Naturalism.
Yes in the same way that fireplaces show that forest fires are intelligently designed. 🙄
@@patldennis The method in which fireplaces are started is so drastically different from non-human made forest fires that indeed, they speak nothing to the natural at all. Your analogy quite neatly sums up how in the dark said OOL researchers are.
@@patldennisfireplaces show that they are designed. No fire place ever built it self from its basic components. I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.
Are you trying to suggest experiment can never work, because experiment will never be the same as natural phenomena? Seems like that's not how things have worked up until now.
"What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated: that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But the machinery by which the cell translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. *Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation.* This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code. Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics." -- Sir Karl Popper
"The scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion -- that everything in the universe happened by chance -- would violate the very objectivity of science itself." --Wernher von Braun
I am a HUGE fan for James tour! That said he blew it in his "debate" with Dave Farina. I minute Farina called hm a liar Jame should have demanded the moderator (what a bad joke he was) have Farina apologize. When we wouldn't (couldn't name calling is what he does) James should have walked off and told Farina "You'll be hearing from my lawyers. But then James Tour is a MUCH NICER person than I. James Tour when in expecting a Debate. Dave Farina went in wanting an (on line) Flame War.
Farina's major problem is James Tour is a Christian. He represents THE WORST on Atheism On Line.
/rant # 736,912
Nope.
Cannot watch it right now, BUT when these two giants come together, I will not miss one second. God bless you both!
I am not a scientist. I am a layperson. However, I am a critical thinker and, I think, blessed with a little common sense. I believe that what Dr Tour has exposed in the field of origin of life studies in relation to what borders on, if not outright, dishonesty as it relates to "peer-reviewed" publishing and "confirmation" of scientific findings by their peers is not confined to this area of science. I believe it is widespread in the sciences. I believe ideology, money and other influences have corrupted several other areas such as climatology, medical sciences, etc... I would love to hear Dr Tour's and Dr Meyer's comments on that.
Reproducibility is better than peer review.
15:30 *_“I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in a Letter to Asa Gray June 18, 1857)
TOUR 🏆
Even with all the clever manipulations and designed equipment, They can't pull it off!
Tony come on Dave already debunked this 🤪
@@hurrikanehavok7313 Ha!
@@hurrikanehavok7313 If you are talking about Dave Farina, what has he been able to debunk? If you actually study what Dave Farina has presented, you will quickly fond that it is not what he attributes it to be. I found Dave Farina to be a problematic science educator and unfamiliar with the various subjects that he purports to be educating on. There are various science education channels out there that have some good material. But many of them (especially Dave Farina's channel) is quite poor and quite misleading in their presentations.
@@hillstrong715I don't see the problem with Farina. Yes, he is a dick. But all he does is listen to James' objections, go to the academic search engine, look for the study that James didn't bother to look for because he's not really interested in science. Then Farina reads papper and explains it to him and James screams because he doesn't know anything and he isn't interested in knowing anything. The proof that James doesn't care about science but is actually interested in yelling at scientists is that he only publishes his objections on his blogs because none of them would pass a papper review.
I'm an organic chemist, and I've been following Tour from the beginning of this whole thing for year or more....there is so much ignorance of people arguing how this is all so easy that have no idea how complicated this chemistry is. Tour is 100% correct on ALL points he makes, and if you want to say otherwise please explain the chemistry to me
Why you don't acount Geological Properties of early earth when you are deducing by your chemistry
Ist commented is correct. It's not ALL chemistry and indeed it is much more complicated but it seems strange that creationists who subscribe to some sort of vitalism try to boil this topic down to solely chemistry.
@patldennis if it's real difficult for them to "create" life in a lab under the right conditions with them doing all the work and and being careful with it, how the heck can it happen in a chaotic early earth, by itself, with no outside agent to guide the process, regardless of the location where it happened.
@patldennis That is not what was said by Dr. Tour in the video. He stated, quite clearly, that according to the origin of life literature, a conducive chemical state is a necessary precursor to the biological aspect of cell development.
According to the accepted early earth models, there was no biological influence to be had. Therefore, elemental chemistry is the only pathway to origin of life, according to a materialistic worldview.
Manipulation of base materiel other than heating and mixing, moves outside of a materialistic world view and into the realm of intelligent design.
Probably you dont understand that “geological properties” are based on chemistry. If you are invoking some magical properties of early earth, that we cannot see today, than probaby you have some problems. I am also organic chemist working in the industry and I agree with Tour 100%.
Intelligent scientists that claim random chances result in life, while they control every step in the process.
Both cognitive dissonance and hilarious at the same time.
Correcto!
could not put it better myself
they are even prepared to sacrifice their own logic and intelligence. Silly silly people
But they say their experiments are done in primordial environments, sort of. The devil, of course, is in the "sort of".
The scientists themselves aren't the issue; I think they understand that randomness isn't at play. Considering the paper's context, Bruce was aware that the process needed guidance or intentional design. The manipulation of scientific experiments to fit a certain narrative is something I've witnessed repeatedly.
My firm belief is that most scientists are genuinely committed to uncovering the truth, without any additional agenda. The real problem lies with academic frauds who distort scientific experiments and the image of scientists to suit their narrative. I've observed this pattern happening repeatedly.
i think to counter this trend, it's crucial for scholars to proactively disprove and reject these individuals publicly, possibly through platforms like RUclips and other social media channels. social media isa very powerful tool, however Although social media is a potent tool, lacademics underutilise it, possibly due to their engagement in more crucial responsibilities.
16:00 *_“When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in his letter to G. Bentham May 22, 1863)
Im not a chemist and i get lost when trying to keep up with understanding.
BUT.......
I understand enough to realize that these things dont "just happen" and that time is not on the side of evolution.
I tried telling that to that "professor youtuber" and i calked him out using his very own logic......and guess what he did?
He insulted me, had his guy ghost my comments and got RUclips to block me for using the exact same language he used.
Instead of answering me.....he got rid of me. Its sad that people actually think he has common sense.
Yea, he got angry and tried to insult me also, used foul language and acted like a child, so I wasnt surprised one bit when he started right out of the gate, trying to insult Dr. Tour, a real professor, in their debate.
My biology teacher in high school, a creationist, asked a question in class. “Give me some examples of mathematics” Hands went up. Students answered. Addition. Subtraction. Multiplication. Division. Then more advanced answers. Trigonometry. Calculus. Quadratic equations. Then the teacher said. “What happens to mathematics if the number ‘1’ is shown not to exist?” One student tentatively put her hand up and said “Mathematics itself, ceases to exist” “Correct” says the teacher. Then the teacher says something really profound. “The same way mathematics ceases to exist if the number ‘1’ doesn’t exist, the theory of Evolution cannot exist without the number ‘1’ In this case, that number ‘1’ is abiogenesis” Even my chemistry teacher said that one day, it may be possible for a chemist to directly influence the creation of a living cell. However, he pointed out that simply placing organic chemicals into a life-friendly environment and hoping that something that constitutes ‘life’ would occur, would be impossible. It would need intervention. Ironically, the chemistry teacher was a lifelong advocate of Evolution!
.
Urmm that's not true, cos once you got life going you can evolve it. For example there's so many different dogs out there. Small ones. Big ones. Short tail long tail. That's because they were artificially evolved by people.
@marioluigi9599 I think you've missed the point. Read the comment again. It's saying without step 1 - formation of biological molecules into cells all the rest is completely irrelevant- infact impossible!
@@marioluigi9599 But irrespective of size or other non-essential features, all dogs are one species and derived from wolves. There is no evolving of speciation here.
@@jameswhite7997
You should be asking: what happens to mathematics if we admit that we _don't know_ how and why the number one exists?
(The answer is: nothing happens to mathematics if we admit that we don't know how and why the number one exists. We relegate that question to the future and get on with other questions which we _can_ answer.)
Roman mathematics lacked the number zero. It was just a different type of mathematics and it worked for them but let's remember that mathematics is just an abstract language. But in the Arabic mathematics that we use, there are infinite numbers between zero and one.
Excellent. Much of this discussion occurs at a level beyond my ability to understand. Compared to the participants, I am a slack jawed Neanderthal with a sloping forehead. However, somehow, they manage to present the material in such a manner that I can at least grasp the concepts. I really appreciate that.
Many cdesign proponentsists (myself included) consider Neanderthals to be merely another race of homosapien rather than an inferior and unintelligent subspecies: "As for Neanderthals, though they have been stereotyped as bungling and primitive, if a Neanderthal walked down the street, you probably wouldn't notice. Wood and Collard note, "skeletons of H. neanderthalensis indicate that their body shape was within the range of variation seen in modern humans." Washington University paleoanthropologist Erik Trinkaus maintains that Neanderthals were no less intelligent than contemporary humans, and argues, "They may have had heavier brows or broader noses or stockier builds, but behaviorally, socially and reproductively they were all just people." University of Bordeaux archaeologist Francesco d'Errico agrees: "Neanderthals were using technology as advanced as that of contemporary anatomically modern humans and were using symbolism in much the same way." Though controversial, hard evidence backs these claims. Anthropologist Stephen Molnar explains that "the estimated mean size of [Neanderthal] cranial capacity (1,450 cc) is actually higher than the mean for modern humans (1,345 cc)." One paper in Nature suggested, "the morphological basis for human speech capability appears to have been fully developed" in Neanderthals. Indeed, Neanderthal remains have been found associated with signs of culture including art, burial of their dead, and complex tools-including musical instruments like the flute. While dated, a 1908 report in Nature reports a Neanderthal type skeleton wearing chain mail armor. Archaeologist Metin Eren said, regarding toolmaking, "in many ways, Neanderthals were just as smart or just as good as us." Morphological mosaics-skeletons showing a mix of modern human and Neanderthal traits-suggest "Neanderthals and modern humans are members of the same species who interbred freely." Indeed, scientists now report Neanderthal DNA markers in living humans, supporting proposals that Neanderthals were a sub-race of our own species. As Trinkaus says regarding ancient Europeans and Neanderthals, "[W]e would understand both to be human. There's good reason to think that they did as well." Darwin skeptics continue to debate whether we are related to Neanderthals and Homo erectus, and evidence can be mounted both ways. The present point, however, is this: Even if we do share common ancestry with Neanderthals or erectus, this does not show that we share ancestry with any non-human-like hominins. As noted, Leslie Aiello observes, "Australopithecines are like apes, and the Homo group are like humans." According to Siegrid Hartwig-Scherer, the differences between human-like members of Homo such as erectus, Neanderthals, and us reflect mere microevolutionary effects of "size variation, climatic stress, genetic drift and differential expression of [common] genes." Whether we are related to them or not, these small-scale differences do not show the evolution of humans from non-human-like or ape-like creatures." Moreland, J.P. et al. Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, Wheaton, Crossway, 2017, pp. 470-472.
If they can understand this, you also can.
25:30 "Investigator Interference" by scientists at the highest levels of academia is not merely Cheating; but, instead, could be considered Fraud.
I've watched some of your other interviews and individual videos. They are all great and this information is so important.
This whole series is just fantastic. Thanks so much, Dr. Tour, great stuff. (Thank you too, Stephen!)
I read Meyer’s “the God hypothesis” took it in small bites. Read a bit each day, toward the end I could not put it down.
Science used to be about searching for truth in God's creation in order to understand Him more deeply and glorify His name.
Science now is about manipulating the truth in order to discredit the existence of God. How far we have fallen when people choose lies over truth because their itching ears desire it.
Science is not about the existence of any god or god's , religion been a belief system is not science.
@@jrssutherland there is no science to invoke if there's no god
@@jrssutherlandsounds like science is your religion.
I can agree with you and add that science has also become the target of fanaticism of many ideologies and in this case of those who feel threatened by the scientific theory of biological evolution and the chemical evolution that gave rise to life.
Sigmund Freud thought that if you searched deeply enough, you should reach the soul. That was an interest of his in studying the subconscious. According to Bruno Bettelheim, Freud's translations from German to English ignored this detail@@jrssutherland
Excellent exposition, can't wait to check out Dr Tour's next video series.
Great podcast idea Stephen - Dr James Tour is incredible
I bought all the parts for my new computer. Still waiting for it to build itself randomly. It has all the parts right?
Put it in some water and just wait millions of years.
flunkee dave clearly was leaning heavily on the ignorance of the audience in that debate in order to sidestep the monumental challenges OOL research must overcome. His open disdain for his own fan base was funny.
BUT HE'S A RUclipsR! HE KNOWS ALL!
As a scientist, please refer me to information or You Tube video explaining the stages of the universe after the Big Bang that explains the generations of stars needed to create iron (supernova) then that iron travels the universe & is absorbed into a new star that becomes a neutron star, that then that neutron star collides with another neutron star to create gold and other heavy elements that travel the universe, and then travels the universe to then coalesce into our earth, with out own solar system, for us to later find.
Are there multiple generations of exploding stars needed to create the elements of our earth?
How long does each generation need?
How long does the exploded materials from each star need to travel the universe to coalesce into another star?
Is the universe really old enough for all the needed steps and traveling, to create the earth as it exists?
Every code presupposes a convention or egreement, which in turn
is the result of intelligence and intentionality. Consequently, no code
without a mind! For instance, there is no material connection between
a word and its meaning, and therefore a word can mean different
things.
Let me give you a tip: here in Brazil we have types on youtube that are an exact match for that Farina guy there. They might have been trained in this atheist sophistry art by the same groups, with money coming from the same powerful sources, aiming at the same goals. Just saying.
They are. There is a systemic push globally for people to start seeing themselves as soulless sacks of meat rather than spiritual but deeply flawed people with a divine spark made in the image of God.
Keep up the great work! Fascinating material.
Thank you
Usually the only thing you will see on tv is people having more fun than me
I appreciate you guys, Stephen Meyer and James Tour for your excellent treasury of extensive knowledge and work. And thanks for the valuable info. Keep it all coming. Your intellectual honesty and reliable research is proven and evident.
This may have been recorded over a year ago but it is still about cutting edge science by two of the best scientists.
Outstanding information!
Ha! Two of the best? I know many scientists that would beg to differ.
@osassabi2202 why not list them then?
@@troywalstra9300James Tour went to Harvard recently for an event. None of those people agree with him and you can hear it in thir questions during the discussion period. A room full.
Thank you gentlemen for your professional attention to these important details regarding the origin of life “problem.”
23:00 "Zwitterionic" phonetically sounds a lot like "Isn't it Ironic"; how appropriate.
rofl
Thank you for exposing abiogenesis as being more akin to 21st C. alchemy, rather than a scientific endeavour.
Jesus bless both of you 🙏🙏🙏
Thank You! All the episodes were extremely informative! And what is even better - both Meyer and Tour are extremely well-spoken.
Illuminating talk! Excellent!!! Loved the graphics.
The claims made by Dave are simply ludicrous, chemistry does NOT work that way, it's that simple
It's nice to have possibility to listen 2 persons who really know what they talking about. 😀
I've noticed the competence of Christians in these discussions on YT has improved greatly in the past decade. Unfortunately, the anti-theists have gotten less competent to the point that they don't understand the argument. They sound like "Prof" Dave.
around 4.48 life is spirit energy. In physical bodies this spirit energy has to be present for life to function. When absent the physical body is dead and not alive although the chemistry is still there.
Life is not chemical nor material in anyway. In mammals, it is called soul or in Hebrew, nephews. It is spiritual in nature, it is not eternal life spirit, but it is spiritual in nature
Even if the chemistry was figured out. Then you would have to figure out how to make it alive. A dead cell has everything for life chemically. except life.
What are the odds that God knew enough biochemistry and cell biology to start life?
inversely proportional to the odds that blind, unguided, piecemeal, physicochemical happenstance could stumble upon an encoded informational process requiring transcription, translation, editing, and correction, i.e., the ribosomal synthesis of proteins. Both require faith. Throw in love, beauty and a whole plethora of other evidence, i could never be an atheist again
God created living things directly, there was no abiogenesis or evolution involved
Why GOD is incapable to do so, could you elaborate for your concept of GOD. It is simple for thinking creatures without prejudice, and not for a person who is not able to think deeply after analyzing possibility.
Apparently He did.
1:1
Please, Dave is not a professor and is not entitled to such a title.
Awesome Dr. Tour is so smart that he needs someone to slow him down and get him to explain what he is saying in common sense normal man terms lol. I have had to stop and look up much of what Dr Tour says as it was beyond me. Thank you guys
thank you
Excellent discussion! ❤
Outstanding video - - - If you are unwilling to believe in the Creator of Everything; God the Father and His Son; Jesus then you are doomed to be deceived into believing in evolution and ETs (aliens) as our progenitors…. God help us all not to fall victim to this “great deception” in the name of Jesus, Amen! (Psalm 14:1 KJV, Matthew 24:24 KJV, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 KJV and to avoid deception John 3:16 KJV)
So INTELLIGENT SYNTHETIC CHEMISTRY is how life is PROVEN to be made?
See the problem with the MYTHOLOGY OF NATURALISM?
It is well understood that most of academia outwardly rejects God. Educators influence the hearts and minds of young adults, teaching that mindless, random events are responsible for life and the universe. But today's scientific discoveries reveal an Author who engineered and fine-tuned every detail of creation, inventing the language of mathematics. Axis of Beginning is a stage play that is an entertaining and educational tool to help combat these educators' wrong teachings. “The earth is where the Biblical story begins. Salvation is what His story is about, and Jesus, the Word of God, is the story’s hero.”
Brother, "a liar will be found out, and a false witness will not be held guiltless." Leave Dave Farina to himself. Just assert the truth in love and continue to explain and show the science, and the truth will gain ascendancy.
Love in our Messiah
they deny a Patterner, yet to do so they act like a patterner themselves
Dave took on Tour to get more eyeballs on his channel. Full stop.
Let’s play a game and calculate the combined IQ of these guys
Divided by 1000, still higher than the IQ of any Evilutionism Zealot.
Ah, come on, the discussion with Dave Farina was a disaster for Tour. And indeed as Meyer suggested: Look for yourself. Tour was reduced to a crying fool.
Are sure you watched the same debate?
Hi, I'm a retired antibody-chemist, not a big-shot synthetic organic chemist like Dr. Tour. This is a very clear, well-explained video. Now please make another video and explain the answer to this follow-up question:
_Why Does It Matter Whether or Not Hands-On Chemistry Experiments Can Simulate A Prebiotic Earth?_
Or to put the same question another way: _WHO CARES???_
And most of all: _Why does anyone think that the fact that we can't simulate a prebiotic earth implies or indicates anything at all about any spiritual, religious, or Biblical question?_ Why do some people (including Dr. Tour) yearn so ardently to take the "We don't know how [x] happened" and put the name "God" onto our lack of knowledge??? What's the point? Who benefits?
The truth benefits
@@vivcraig7023
The truth benefits if you ignore the truth? Sounds silly.
The big idea is the dichotomy of abiogenesis in primordial conditions and micro biological evolution. Not the same. Chemical biogenesis should be able to describe all chemical processes in sequence and with a timeline.
*_The sheer Impossibility of life forming in the first place_* is a prime example of the handiwork of God. And this leads to the unavoidable question: *_What if God only did this on one planet?_*
If that were the case, then we would have an *_Empty Universe!_* No Klingons for our future Captain Kirk.
"For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Nobody questions the difficulty of explaining abiogenesis. I suggest reading the work of Nick Lane to get an idea of just how much more complex the endeavour is than even these guys explain. However being unable to explain something and admitting we don't know how it happened is worlds away from inventing god. If we apply the same reasoning to "god" we simply say that as you can't explain why god exists and as you can't explain why he is eternal or explain any of "his" other attributes and motives. Then your failure to prove a single iota of his existence or his genesis allows us dismiss your god of the gaps until you can reproduce your god in a lab .
Is Tour's complaint more about the squandering of research dollars, the trivialization of belief in a creator, or the contravention of the scientific method? To be fair, Jack Szostak of Harvard for example has made it very clear in recent videos that little true knowledge has been gained, and is not pretending otherwise, whereas, Prof Dave who we love and admire for his extremely helpful videos seems a bit overextended in this light.
I’ve never heard mentioning the squandering of research dollars. What he mentioned is the lying about what has been accomplished.
You cannot tell from Tour’s words whether he is a theist or not.
Stephen Meyer is a Christian.
Steve, and James, I'm asking this question because U both seem to be very good at Science across the board, do U know about Bonding Gase's Oxygen and Hydrogen Debunks Newtons Gravity ?
Question for another video: if the origin of life part of evolution is refuted, what are we left with ... does it become a kind of flat earth type of theory ... Newtonian physics vs Einsteinian or ....?
Scientists do know much about genetics, mutations and such, and we know how selective breeding techniques have given us the Labrador, poodle and Doberman, and we see it in our own fellow human beings.
So what domain of usefulness will it recede into?
If purpose is not intentionally left out of the scientific method, what might we find?
I applaud you guys' efforts. I recommend, though, for the sake of effectiveness, that you decide before you make a video who you want to reach, who you're speaking to, and then don't muddy the water by speaking to other scientists. You lose me, an enthusiastic follower., so I know you must be losing many others who you want to reach. I think Tour has information that is essential to the debate, but it isn't often enough being given in an efficacious manner. Save the more precise scientific discussion for scientific papers or for debates with other scientists. I love what Tour has to say, I just hope he doesn't make me work so hard to hear him or go away wishing it could have been clearer.
Following these two has truly debunked most of my formal education from sixth grade through college. The whole evolutionary, primordial ooze nonsense was drilled into our developing brains as factual. Perhaps my teachers and professors received the same education before they became teachers. I was in sixth grade in 1966/67. I enjoyed every science class I took. To find out at my age now that it was mostly theoretical 29:16 fiction, not fact, makes me feel like I wasted so much time. Yet, I am thankful to have Dr’s Meyer and Tour explain it to me.
There's not a single textbook approved to be used by schools that shows this supposed "primordial ooze" claim. You are repeating the nonsense straw man of James Tour. Also shocker: a lot of things taught in the 1960's turned out to be wrong. Duh????
The issue with hands-on chemistry somehow successfully simulating this is that it would have to simulate it RANDOMLY. Which is impossible. By trying to even simulate it -- even if successfully -- we're introducing the ONE factor that makes it all possible: US. WE are playing God. WE are setting the stage. WE are assembling the puzzle pieces. By trying to simulate it, we're essentially PROVING there was an ultimate designer at play. Which is ultimately at the heart of even trying to prove this (by proving it, we're saying we don't even need a God to make it possible.... However, proving it does the exact opposite.).
If some day( far in the future) scientists build life it will only prove what we already know. Intelligence manipulates perameters to achieve logical functionality. That is all intelligence has ever proven. Intelligence creates.
60 days are up! ( Aug.24 '23 to Oct. 24 '23. Not a peep out out of any of them. My they rest in peace.
So, what, then is the hypothesis for the origin of life? Some living/non-living super-chemist devised it? That doesn't answer the question any better.
Yes it does! It is our scientific knowledge that says no mechanisms and laws that we see can account for the creation of life. Similarly science says matter cannot be created from nothing, based on all our observations of a real universe . So we logically must conclude there must be something outside the universe that created it and also created life. Somethings that is outside of the observed universe, not composed of matter time and space.
God. A mathematician might think of it as another dimension, but it is also clear that it is a mind with intelligence which designs, for example the DNA code. I hope this helps
@@bobdalton2062Lack of knowledge is only evidence of lack of knowledge.
@@bobdalton2062it doesn’t have to be outside matter and space it could be a part of it, we just don’t know about it. “Anther dimension” isn’t really outside everything it’s just expands what everything is.
imagine if you found a toyota corrola in a galaxy far far away. would you say, perfectly possible from randomness? after all a toyota is an assemblage of atoms
Dr Meyer. What are your opinions on the work of Dr Peter Gariaev in the field of genetics?
I hope that someone can understand this . I hope that we all become more amazed by life itself .
Who is the artist of the painting of reflected trees (bilayer) behind Stephen Meyer?
im sorry but I had to say it, stephen looks like saul goodman
Presumably, the "warm LITTLE pond" would be small, meaning, near land, possibly sand.
And the relevancy of that is...?
It’s unclear what the guest is arguing exactly.
Disconnect the message from any religious agenda. This presentation does a better job than most at doing so. For thousands of years abusive low IQ people used the name of God in vain. Many people who think they are Atheists are actually just rational thinkers protecting their minds from control freaks and explanatory fictions. I know there is God; but every person has to come to that understanding by way of their own life’s journey. God set this reality up that way for a reason. When religious nuts and control freaks usurp the message it will fall on deaf ears.
You wrote, Disconnect the message from any religious agenda."
Too late. These guys have already connected it.
You wrote, "This presentation does a better job than most at doing so."
Just because they do a good job of trying to hide the religious agenda, that doesn't mean it isn't there.
Anyway, these guys have already explicitly articulated and described their religious agenda. Just because they don't happen to mention it in some particular example of them promoting the science denialism of their religion-based pseudoscience thinking, that doesn't change the fact that their religious agenda is what drives it.
Indeed, the very fact that James Tour and Stephen Meyer appear together here is literally another example of the particular religious agenda they share.
There's nothing wrong with the thinking involved in these origin of life claims in the current modern context. It's perfectly consistent with the level of thinking that allows a person to accept the theory of evolution without question.
I am from Indonesia, and i love this video ❤❤🇮🇩
It is evident that highly complex structures like even the simplest cell cannot happen randomly. It does not require much discussion. But the origin of life does not have to be that complex. It does not have to be based on DNA or RNA. Any structure capable of replicating itself can be a start later evolving into DNA-based cells. Are such self-replication structures possible? This is the proper question to answer.
But what is not evident is the question whether there can be simpler "semi-life" chemistry that could be the pre-cursor of life and that is what is being asked by these scientists.
For example take the history and evolution of computer programming. Do you still see punched cards? Do you still see floppy drives or tape drives? Have you ever seen anyone still programming with machine language?
In evolution, sometimes the very things that started it are the ones that becomes obsolete the fastest.
@@pulsar22The problem with this analogy is that even punched cards and machine language were intelligently designed.
@@pulsar22 Please keep away from using the any analogy to computer programming, you do not appear to understand anything about the history or the subject matter when you make your comments. Choose some other analogy if you want to use any analogy.
@@pulsar22 yes to all your questions which are not good analogies anyway
Stephen, we met years ago at one of Dr. Missler's functions in Couer d'Alene, Idaho. Has anybody looked into the Morgellan's phenomenon? This is merely a hunch, but my hunch is that this may be a preliminary attempt to construct a self-folding protein; skipping the amino acid necessity. I'm not saying it's possible to form life in that manner; I'm merely suggesting that looking further into the fibers that have this artificial life component in each of them, may be evidence of an attempt to at least see what might take place when given a host to assist the inducement of that attempt to create a life form from a simple structure.
Hi I wish to address this question to Stephen Meyer, can you say something about plate tectonics and stratigraphy in relation to the Cambrian Explosion missing fossils question? Thanks.
"Condensation reactions that must eliminate water are thermodynamically unfavorable in aqueous bulk, and yet are ubiquitous and essential to life. In addition, peptide bond formation will not occur between two amino acids in their zwitterionic form, the predominate state in a bulk aqueous environment."
You don't need to capture the entire plurality of prebiotic earth, only the relevant factors specific to life forming, which we don't know.
if the way it works best if either right left, or left right then its going to be either this or that, maybe ask why there isnt both at the same time is a better question, but if there is a difference it will grow because as diversity grows and consumption of biological material produced in more and more different other organisms increases it becomes more likley that an organism with right left can safely consume a molecule or protein from a right left organism, because of the common ancestry and the similarities in how the two organisms processes different chiral molecules. so lets just say that i think that if you tested all bio molecules and proteins ect, on humans today, its likley that the opposite chirality molecule is dangerous than the common chirality molecule, same would go for early life, they could at some stage dvelop a random difference and whether it happens at the stage of autocatalisys, or durign the development of the first early life itself, after its inception as cells and such, the difference in right left and left right would probably still be a self reinforcing disparity. at least it completely plausible, and i dont understand how you can deny that.
no you dont have to explain why there is one Chirality vs the other. you could flip the entire thing and have it the other way, but then its still right for one type and left for the other, or the opposite, why isnt it right right, or left left , or random, thats what has to be explained, and explaining why all of those fail is easy, its like reflecting the shape of a key, it just doesnt fit the lock anymore, you have to reflect both of them or none of them.
was going to say this is pre debate why post it now, but then I realized, physics and chemistry still work the same way. :D
These guys seem really preoccupied with talking about Dave Farina. Considering he’s not an OoL researcher or even a professor, I fail to see what talking about how he doesn’t know chemistry or can’t read papers will accomplish.
Because he has large audience. James addressed this same question multiple times in the previous three videos. Also Dave came after Tour when he criticised OoL research and now Tour is responding.
How many variations of this comment do you plan on leaving?
Didn’t Dave have three experts in his show? 😂
@@Matt-by2bf I plan on making variations of this comment for as many times as James talks about Dave. Seems like James needs to get his priorities straight
How can Oparin give an evolutionary chemical theory, without knowing Chemistry, Biochemistry thoroughly?
He did not do it. He proposed it because it is the logical direction to follow once you know biology. Although Oparín was not the first to point in that direction, it was Charles Darwin.
Have I been banned?
From where....?
Is Dave really the biggest threat facing OoL? Ignoring the fact that he's a RUclipsr who isn't even claiming to be a real professor, you've never talked about Dave until he made videos about you specifically even though he's been talking about OoL for about 5 years now.
So are you saying Dave is learning his lessons? To not challenge people by name, especially those above his punching level?
@@tebogomore6673I'm asking why does James care so much about what Dave thinks now that Dave makes videos about him even though Dave was talking about OoL for years before he made his first video on James if these videos are truly about shining a new light on OoL research
It can be very simple. Dave has enough followers to make it worth facing him on RUclips. Because creationism always looks for imaginary enemies. It is evident that Jame is not interested in science, especially if it has anything to do with the theory of evolution. James is a Ken Ham with a degree.
@@tebogomore6673 "above his punching level?"
Which I guess is supposed to explain why Farina trounced the screaming idiot Tour in the debate.
I'm NOT saying Farina is a good debater. Some of his presentation was very good - but other aspects of his presentation were, how to put it mildly, over-the-top antagonism. But the material he presented was excellent, while all Tour did was deliberately ignore the research material Farina presented - the exact research results Tour was trying to pretend doesn't exist - and all Tour did was scream "CLUELESS!" a few dozen times to ignore the research results. Farina's post-debate analysis in which he went into even more detail on the research articles, was priceless.
@@raulhernannavarro1903 You wrote, "James is a Ken Ham with a degree."
Or, James Tour is a Stephen Meyer, with a degree in science.
Or, James Tour is an Andrew Snelling, except his degree is in chemistry.
Interestingly enough, Snelling has actually published some genuine scientific research in professional geology literature - and his research is consistent with the geological antiquity of the earth ("Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?"
Two questions. Chirality and the right-hand rule. Is it possible that chirality is necessary for the movement of magnetic/electric potential in a retain direction along molecular chains, and that’s why homo-chirality is so critical to life-sustaining polymers, molecules?
Second, have you heard of EZ, Exclusion Zone, water? Apparently, when up against a hydrophobic boundary, water self-organizes into a hydrophobic semi-crystalline state when exposed to light in the infrared portion of the EM spectrum. Could this phenomenon explain how non-aqueous chemistry can happen inside aqueous cells?
Your first question might be answered by CISS (Chiral Induced Spin Selectivity). It sends the reaction down the most energetically favourable pathway thus reducing the “friction” of any reaction hence minimising thermal output.
What is the light source for cells lots of cells don't have any light at all! And certainly not at the intensity that this requires!
Dr. Tour knows nothing about quantum. It is the future of science beyond your imagination.
Your comment seems to have zero semantic content. Would you like to elucidate what you are thinking?
You said nothing
Vapid platitude. Got anything with meat on it?
Dear Mr Meyer,
I just watched your interview with Piers Morgan about existence of GOD and I am glad to hear a man in science could logically explain why there must be an Intelligent Designer and Creator.
Thank you for your contribution and may GOD bless you.
However I need to point out that the Omnipotent, Sublime Creator as such cannot be any less than Omniscient. Therefore GOD Almighty never took a risk when He created the human race. In fact HE was absolutely aware of each and every individual's final destiny.
The creation of human beings was followed by their acceptance of a test which was offered to them after we humans failed to side with GOD when Satan claimed he could be a god besides the Almighty and he could run a kingdom independent of GOD.
Some of us humans got carried away by the majority and didn't think hard before accepting the test and GOD knew those very few humans deserved a final chance, as a result the entire human race was created or recreated but in another dimension and having their memories wiped out.
That's how none of us can remember what happened in the high society but we are given Scriptures and guidance to be reminded of why we are on this planet.
Satan as a temporary god on earth is being put to the test, he has failed miserably in his godhood. Humans are choosing idols instead of GOD alone and suffering the consequence of that disastrous choice because by not submitting to GOD alone we lose the protection GOD has promised over His righteous servants and we expose ourselves to Satan's incompetence in running his kingdom, planet Earth.
I would like to share a link that would provide more detailed information, mathematical scientific proof for the brief into above and more, God willing.
www.quranalone.com/#/
God bless and peace.
Two of the very best Christian apologists. Thank God for them!
If you're gonna talk about Dave for talking about OoL, why not talk about Derek Muller who had Richard Dawkins as a guest? Why not make fun of Crash Course or Hank Green for a video he made about intelligent design being religious?
Fundamentally he is a Christian and then a prominent chemist.
Your point?