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.
@@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.
Jim, I feel your pain. The field of OoL really hasn't progressed much since Miller-Urey, but the field still pretends they are making progress. But theorizing and speculating isn't sufficient to claim progress. And sadly, people have wasted careers trying to make the next big step from Miller. We are now three generations away from the famous 1952 experiment, with almost nothing more to show. The parallel in physics is string theory.
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.
@@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.
Dr. Tour thank you so much for succinctly explaining this dilemma in abiogenesis. I remember biochemistry back in medical school thinking, “Wait a minute!” Learning the steps in DNA replication and transcription and the large number of proteins required to do that, also knowing that those proteins cannot be manufactured without the DNA, RNA apparatus. As a young Christian med student I saw immediately how this absolutely defeated the idea of cellular abiogenesis. The simple probability of these two hugely complex systems developing in some pro biotic soup is statistically impossible for either one alone, not to mention both simultaneously and co-dependently. Your expertise and passion for sharing this and your love for Jesus is so encouraging. When I try to explain this to my 36 year old son, who is a high school AP biology teacher, who has “deconstructed” his faith, he falls back to a “God of the Gaps” defense. I would love to hear you comment on that criticism some time. Thanks again! God bless your work!
Yeah, I'll bet you'd like to hear a defense of the god of the gaps fallacy you folk worship. May Apollo be with you in your Christian darkness, and light your way out.
@@Belmondo_RH ROTFLMAO! I haven't seen you on this channel before, but you may as well know there is a particular troll who think I'm you, or you're me, or we're both sock puppets for someone else. Just fyi.
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?
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.
@@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.
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
no the information is simply the animo acids themselfses im sorry you didnt learn that but in the case of this were it appluies the amino acids ARE the information
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!
@ Christians forget that their god is just one of many. There are currently about 2.3 billion Christians (Pew research) on a planet of 8.2 billion. The vast majority of people reject the Jesus/god concept. It's pretty arrogant for Christians to claim their god is responsible for the "spirit" in everyone on the planet! Practically every society has a god or gods. They can't all be right, but they can all be 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 !"
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.
Thank you for speaking the truth! As a chemist, I completely agree with your observation that molecules, especially complex ones like DNA, don't self assemble. It takes a lot of work and planning to create mokecules. It takes intelligence!
*_It takes intelligence!_* - Why? And whose intelligence? Lucifer's? Allah's? Vishnu's? Buddha's? True, _modern_ DNA molecules won't self assemble from scratch, but that's not the proposal, as you should bloody well know if you're a real chemist. DNA was additional to far simpler structures used as a scaffolding long since disappeared.
They just love the Kool Aid don't they. They just can't understand that molecules linked as letters in an alphabet, making words (codons) producing a code to be translated to a different molecular alphabet for templates to construct the parts of molecular machines would require a mind. They don't understand that nature has no mind that cares about reaching functional goals. They can't see that as design but somehow they can look at other things they've never seen and they'd assure you it was designed. Plus, they think that in order for you to know it's designed that you Must know who the designer is. That's real stupidity for you.
@@TheGuy.. Sweetie, we leave magic to you believers in it. We do nature, which we can test and verify. When you have evidence for your magical god, do let us know.
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"
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.
@@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 😇
All of the universe to support and sustain life requires immense understanding in mathematics, chemistry, physics, engineering, biochemistry, light, electricity, magnetism, and absolutely an awareness of time. How can any person of reason grant super natural levels of understanding to unguided inanimate matter.
Tell me, do snowflakes know how to assemble themselves, or are they carved by snowflake pixies? Or is it just inanimate matter assembling itself according to its molecular structure?
@MithrasTheElder What is the likelihood of water's special geometric and physio-chemical characteristics to come into being compared to this intricate thing don't coming into existence? What is the likelihood of earth having excess liquid water compared to the opposite, etc.?
@@linusloth4145 Sweetums, we don't have your divine revelation to imagine we know everything just like you. We have to deal with the universe we know. Water is structured the way it is, and not any other way, and we don't claim we know why the laws of this universe are the way they are. If you want to imagine you god carefully crafted the water molecule to make snowflakes, you go right ahead. We'll call the funny wagon to take you away.
Give it up. I've pointed out to you numerous times that nobody is claiming, "magic," except you trolls. If we were to encounter an alien race who was more technologically advanced than us, it would SEEM like magic, but it isn't. They just have more advanced knowledge than we do. Please, pull your head out and stop using stawman arguments.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
@@basedchad7026 Because the quote is not about the origin of life, but about the RNA World hypothesis. He was talking about details. And I'm not even sure the quote is accurate because I can't find it anywhere. So I don't know the context and neither does the commenter.
@@basedchad7026 There is no evidence that is a real quote. It appears on the Reasons To Believe site as "someone told me Orgel said this..." Orgel also died 18 years ago so the quote even if true is not applicable to what be know about RNA's history today.
I am a chemist Dr Tour, your evaluation on the flaws behind chemical reactions which have been posited by the OOL researchers are true. The primordial soup theory is a complete fallacy. Thank you
@@linusloth4145 None of you creos have any evidence for your belief in magic, nor for your faith abiogenesis is in some unspecified way impossible. It's why I don't credit them.
@MithrasTheElder You don't have any evidence that objective truth exists, that our senses trustworthily describe the outside world, that the past existed and many more things that you are taking on blind belief.
@@linusloth4145 Of course we have evidence, dunce! It's called trial and error. If you seriously think the world outside your ears ain't real, I'll give you one bit of advice: don't go out playing in imaginary traffic. You might find that's all too real. Unlike the god you slavishly worship.
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.
@@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 TH-cam 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
And you guys are the Joe Hanvey? He shines flashlights at an upside down bowl and says that can explain 24 hour sun in Antarctica. You guys turn the bowl rightside up and dump in a bunch of chemicals and say that can explain the origin of life. Well done!
@@donut2099 For a none naturalistic orogin of life you literally have to believe in the supoernatural. Claiming that life originated on any other way than by natural means you have to believe in magic. "No! Chemistry is not enough..some sort of magic MUST have been involved!" That is your position in a nutshell. Amazing! Not to mention that you have to ignore a pile of science...just as flat earters do.
So please...enlighten us: What ill-defined supernatural/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ whatever, which apparently is not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science…is it that was necessary for life ans how do you know??
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.
-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,
If Tour is such crazy dumb Creationists why do you have such a zeal to discredit him? Deep down you know that he is an exceptional scientist and you have to discredit him to uphold and reinforce your own biases and beliefs.
@@linusloth4145 "If Tour is such crazy dumb Creationists why do you have such a zeal to discredit him?" Becasuse that is what one does with such crazy dumb Creationists.
"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.
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?
None, assembly hypothesis is a way to take money from the public, by making mind games about measures of complex objects and the steps to make them in cross line with evolution. After many years of origin of life research; Lee Cronin latest video talks about “existence and replication” , as if he is making a novel revelation, when in fact is just a word recycled salad from any new age book from Deepak Chopra. Assembly hypothesis has no deliverables and it will never provide any. It doesn’t have even a clear definition of “life”. To me , It is only a way to make a salary without accountability.
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.
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!
@littleacorn2244 all kinds of people believe all kinds of wrong things, but they can introduce you to lots of good information. I've found him to be quite accurate in the area of molecular biology. At least the stuff I've heard. He may have been the first person I heard refute the "52 cards in any order are just as probable" argument against target protein topology matching more accurately than Demski.
@MithrasTheElder Yes, and the amino acids found on any of its debris could be terrestrial following the impact. I didn't say that the meteorite would have been contaminated in a split second before it bounced back up escaping earth's gravity and then somehow we picked up a sample from it in space and found amino acids! I obviously meant that as the meteorite settled in its final resting place on earth, anything found on it could have come from earth, after the impact. Researchers finding amino acids on any part of it could make assumptions about the origin of these amino acids when an obvious conclusion; i.e., post impact contamination, should be the first assumption.
@@realnazarene5379 Look, the point is that the discoveries of organic compounds on asteroid weren't just made by looking at remnants of meteors on earth. It's bloody obvious to the dimmest intellect those could have been contaminated, so reports of organics even in the middle of such samples and not just on the surface, would be questionable. No, the observation was made from asteroids sampled in space, and returned to earth in isolation from contamination: _"Washington, DC-Approximately 20,000 organic molecules composed of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, or sulfur were found in samples returned to Earth from the asteroid Ryugu by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency’s Hayabusa2 mission, according to new work published in two Science papers from an international team that included Carnegie’s George Cody, Jens Barosch, and Larry Nittler."_ Look up "Organic molecules found on first primitive asteroid sample returned to Earth" on the Carnegie science site. It's not the only report of organic compounds on extra-terrestrial asteroids. Look up "Asteroids Organic Compounds" at jpl dot nasa dot gov. Organic compounds have also been detected on places like Mars and Titan. If you think those were contaminated from earth, I'd like to know how. Even the gas giants contain methane and other hydrocarbons.
Right, it's a book atheists don't want you to read. More great books are Icons of Evolution, Zombie Science, Darwin's Black Box, A Mousetrap for Darwin, Darwin's Doubt, Your Designed Body, The Stairway to Life, The Scientific Approach to Evolution. There's more but these are very insightful because they tell you what college biology and biochemistry books won't tell you.
@@TheGuy.. Read them all you want. Just understand they are creationist pseudoscience garbage. If you try to have a science discussion using the "science" in those books you'll get laughed out of the room, just like TheGuy here's nonsense got him laughed at.
You obviously haven't read the books or you'd be able to point out specifics of how they are wrong. You don't realize how laughable the things you atheists are saying to us that have read our books AND your books. It's your preferred books that are loaded with pseudoscience. Just read Icons of Evolution by J Wells or at least check out a few of his videos to get a hint of what's written and referenced in his books. Then present me with something you think is in error. You keep failing to show how what we are presenting is in error. You just keep barking that we believe pseudoscience but then you don't substantiate it. The best I get is someone elephant hurling the names of science articles.
@@TheGuy.. All of those creationist bullsh!t books have been thoroughly rebutted for years if not decades. "Moonie" Wells was one of the biggest creationist clowns out there. You need hip waders to get through all the crap in his "Icons" brain fart. *Then present me with something you think is in error.* I already presented you with close to a dozen scientific papers with genetic evidence for macroevolution. You yelled *NUH-UH!* and ran the other way. 😄
From Aron's wiki page. In March 2017, Ra resigned from his position as president of the Atheist Alliance of America to run for the Texas State Senate against Republican incumbent Bob Hall.[7][25][26] The first Democratic candidate to run for the District 2 seat since 2002,[8] he dropped out of the race after failing to secure the Democratic Party endorsement.[27] More wiki info: Atheist Alliance International Atheist Alliance International (AAI) is a non-profit advocacy organization committed to raising awareness and educating the public about atheism. The group supports atheist and freethought organizations around the world through promoting local campaigns, raising awareness of related issues, sponsoring secular education projects, and facilitating interaction among secular groups and individuals. There is more interesting info on that wiki page. Kinda makes me wonder what, if any, connections they might have with antifa.
Another interesting observation is how their, "symbol" is very similar to the anarchist symbol. I presume most of you are able to search the web. It's not hard. Most of this stuff is in plain sight if you only bother to look. Follow the threads and come to your own conclusions. You can find all kinds of things if you but try.
Darling, you really are one of the dumbest folk on the planet. Are you American? If so, I'll bet you voted for Trump. Three times. Takes real stupidity to do that.
The most science can say is "we have no natural explanation for this." It can't prove there was no God, and it can't prove there is, but it can show that naturalism doesn't have a good explanation and then as human beings able to reason beyond the tools we use we should be able to understand that God beyond nature is responsible even if the tool of the scientific method can't see that even if it is true because it is limited to detecting cause and effect within nature.
Actually, science has come up with natural explanations for lots of stuff folk like you used to think was magic, like weather and the seasons. Just because it hasn't found an answer for the origin of life yet, doesn't mean your favourite sky-daddy, whichever it is, did it.
@MithrasTheElder Science was developed by those with a Christian view of the cosmos, not by chance but because it is just the one you need to think there are laws, the laws are unchanging, and consistent around the cosmos. That's why the nation where science developed were the Christian ones. Protestant Christianity in particular. That science has found many cases where there were laws put in place by the Creator rather than case by case intervention to produce this or that effect does not change the fact that there are important places where it has been unable to do so and the more we study it the more it looks like there is no natural explanation. BTW, Mithras was a member of a distorted version of the Trinity. I made a video on it.
@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 *_Science was developed by those with a Christian view_* Nope, it was developed against the enraged opposition of the Christian church of the day. They're still smarting over Galileo. Science today, as before, is a secular pursuit, because religion has nothing to contribute to it. The most they can do is try to ban it, which they have tried. *_That science has found many cases where there were laws put in place by the Creator_* - You're begging the question, assuming there is a magical sky-daddy, then claiming science discovers its laws. In the hundreds of years of scientific research, we've seen no gods, no miracles, just natural causes. I see no reason that shouldn't continue. Oh and sweetiepuff, I'm not a trinity.
@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982so because we don’t have an answer to something….that shows we shouldn’t use naturalism? Many cultures helped create and use science not just Christian ones.
@@therick363 by "use naturalism" I presume you mean methodological naturalism while conducting experiments via the SM. No, I am not saying that. I am saying because we DO use it, we can't expect it to be able to prove a cause comes from beyond nature. We need to be bigger than the tools we use. Tools like the SM. It may only be able to conclude "we have no good natural explanation yet" and that is as far as it can go. But we can go farther and reasonably conclude the explanation is supernatural.....at least in instances where we have studied a question a long time and the more we learn about it the less plausible proposed natural explanations seem. It is not reasonable to appeal to the supernatural as a reflex response. Your last statement, while not technically untrue, skirts the vast historical evidence that science was developed and progressed primarily in Christian nations and only from there spread to the rest of mankind. Instead of denying it by pointing out minor contributions that didn't last from elsewhere, it would be better if you just accepted it and asked why that is true IMHO.
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.
@@TheGuy.. Tour's minions deleted my reply, but I do thank you for showing me exactly what a True Christianᵀᴹ is. Every time I look at your posts, I think of Jesus.
Here is something else to think about. Satan's problem, was trying to replace God with himself and "become" god. What do you think these atheists are trying to do? They think THEY, as well as humans in general, are gods because they try to toss out the real God and take His place.
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.
@ 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.
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. 😆😆😄😄
@@daveblock What problem? We can't go back in time, so we need to figure out the moving parts as good as we can. And there is no definitive answer to any of this yet. But steady progress is being made. Parts of the puzzle are solved, parts of it are still very puzzling. That's the adventure. It's sad that you limit all possibilities and discard everything only done in a lab. It's very dishonest because I don't see you denying all 90% of the science that makes our lives work today.
@@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.
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?
@@cocoloco5533 That's a Bulverist claim. Prove it. Funding the OoL research is like funding a search for the true Santa Clause. It's better to fund nanotechnology research because perhaps through this research we can find molecular machines that would destroy cancer cells or other viruses...Oh, that would be funding Tour's work! What a great idea!
@@TheGuy.. Your post just made me realize something. How much money has been dumped into OoL/abiogenesis? How much money would it take to actually prove something that never happened? It would be never ending because it will never be proven. Think about that. A never ending supply of grant money being used to "research" something that never happened, and therefore will become a never ending fountain of funding. Gotta admit, it's pretty clever.
@@codonmatrix4510 That's a point I make. Abiogenesis by natural processes will never happen. If they knew the chemistry and the obstacles they'd realize that. They don't know the chemistry, or they DO know the chemistry but continue in promoting their fantasy so that they can justify their lifestyles. I'd rather have my tax money going into Tour's nano chemistry research to find cures for diseases/cancer/etc. Excellent point.
@@TheGuy.. It would also explain the constant false claims of being just a few years away from doing it. Oh darn, missed it by that much. Oh well, we almost got it, send more money. Gotta keep the hype train rolling.
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 .
Exactly RIGHT! Imagine a snow globe with all the flakes floating around. That is analogous to how materialist's view the universe and life on Earth beginning. No MIND to bring the "flakes" together! It all happened randomly with NO GUIDANCE!!
Can't you turn the questions around and say that secular science is trying to disprove GOD by claiming OoL can be duplicated in a lab? Isn't that what is basically happening?
No. Secular science says nothing about any God or Gods. OOL is studied for the same reason all natural phenomena are studied - to better understand the natural world.
What @cocoloco5533 said is true. The fact of evolution didn't disprove god, why would demonstrating how abiogenesis happened be any different? Sure, it would disprove certain naïve ideas about god based on a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, but we're already way past that. Even the Catholics accept evolution, and you can't get holier than the pope!
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.
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.
So, apprently other (unnamed) people have already published his "OOL is impossible" critiques. Yet strangely no one can find those critiques in the peer-reviewed literature, only on creationist sites like this one. He is piling lie upon lie...and hs flock just eats it up...
@@Belmondo_RH Well, Mr Tour is tenured at Rice. Were he to start insisting publicly the earth is only 6000 years old, his tenure might come for review! He doesn't accept evolution, that's for sure.
Clueless. Papers are only published and peer reviewed on work that is funded to show evidence something happens. You said he lied about proteins forming not forming in water and autocatalytic reactions, I challenged you to back up those claims and I got crickets. Im laughing at U.
@@daveblock Here's a small sample of publications about abiotic synthesis of polypeptides and RNAs: Boron-assisted abiotic polypeptide synthesis. Yuki Sumie1, Keiichiro Sato, Takeshi Kakegawa, Yoshihiro Furukawa. Commun Chem. 2023 May 11;6(1):89 doi: 10.1038/s42004-023-00885-7. Borate-guided ribose phosphorylation for prebiotic nucleotide synthesis. Hirakawa Y, Kakegawa T, Furukawa Y. Sci Rep. 2022 Jul 19;12(1):11828. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-15753-y. Is boron a prebiotic element? A mini-review of the essentiality of boron for the appearance of life on earth. Scorei R. Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2012 Feb;42(1):3-17. doi: 10.1007/s11084-012-9269-2. Epub 2012 Apr 17. Energetics of Amino Acid Synthesis in Alkaline Hydrothermal Environments. Kitadai N. Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2015 Dec;45(4):377-409. doi: 10.1007/s11084-015-9428-3. Epub 2015 Mar 22. Boron in Prebiological Evolution. Franco A, da Silva JAL. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2021 May 3;60(19):10458-10468. doi: 10.1002/anie.202010616. Epub 2021 Jan 22. Thioesters provide a plausible prebiotic path to proto-peptides. Frenkel-Pinter M, Bouza M, Fernández FM, Leman LJ, Williams LD, Hud NV, Guzman-Martinez A. Nat Commun. 2022 May 11;13(1):2569. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-30191-0. There's lots more where that came from. Oh, and here's a review of abiotic polynucleotide synthesis: Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis. Mahipal YadavRavi KumarRamanarayanan Krishnamurthy. Chem. Rev. 2020, 120, 4766-4805 Plenty more where that came from, too.
Let's take a quick gander at some of the underlying misconceptions held by (overwhelmingly) Christian fundamentalists about abiogenesis research. First, they correctly point out that modern life has a specific suite of highly complex and specialised macromolecules, such as proteins, polysaccharides, and the nucleic acids RNA and DNA. They point out, again correctly, that it is a very difficult problem for abiogenesis to explain. So far, so good. Where they virtually all go astray is in the naïve, not to say silly expectation that abiogenesis research is trying to show how all these _modern_ macromolecules spontaneously self-generated from primordial soup by random processes. Creationists do love the word "random." Well, if life had emerged that random way, it would have been a one-time and stupendously inexplicable event, so unlikely as to have been virtually impossible. Yet here we are, with no magical gods to explain it at hand, either. So the origin of life remains an interesting mystery - well, interesting to non-fundamentalists. They love this caricature or straw man so much they're all oblivious that research in abiogenesis isn't postulating some ridiculously improbable random event. No, it is focused on identifying far simpler chemically dynamic systems governed by underlying physicochemical principles, that could also involve inorganic components (minerals and clays), and might include far simpler precursor molecules that could cycle or replicate in a stable manner. They are not even looking for _the specific_ historical pathway that actually resulted in abiogenesis. There would be no way of confirming any suggested pathway as genuinely historical anyway, since abiogenesis has not left any paleontological record the same way that evolution has a fossil record. But even though we might never be able to discover _the actual_ historical pathway, there is considerable hope that through systems chemistry, general chemical processes can be identified with specific examples that could in principle be used by a pathway from non-life to life. Once such chemical systems established themselves stably, they could evolve in the direction of increasing stability by incorporating new polymers, and new ways of storing information, hence provide a plausible pathway for abiogenesis. Any serious student who is interested in a discussion of where research is actually at today, where it's headed, and what its prospects and limitations are, could start at this brief and readable review - it's a bit out of date (2013), but still worth a gander to see the ideas that are really being kicked around and tested, as opposed to the nonsense claimed by Christian fundamentalists: *The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know.* Addy Pross and Robert Pascal. Open Biol. 2013 Mar;3(3):120190. doi: 10.1098/rsob.120190 - it's available online though obviously you'll have to google as YT won't link.
@@littleacorn2244 Yeah, I know, the groupies don't do science. They can't understand the big words. Mr Tour can. though, which is why his attitude is far more heinous than theirs. But I posted this for us, not them. I'm not saying the review authors are the last word on abiogenesis, or that their ideas are all necessarily true. It's more a matter of pointing out this is an active research field, and not a dead one as creos would prefer.
To put it somewhat crudely, put up or shut up! You have the blueprint for a living cell, in fact, any number of different models. You have access to all of the chemicals and minerals that you might need. Make a living cell. Just one. You can't, and to make one single cell is just the beginning, the examples we have can autonomously find and assimilate sustenance, relieve themselves of waste and, procreate. Nonsense from Christians? You might look in your own back yard.
@@billpowell9527 Put up what, or shut up why, sweetiepoo? Do you bible-thumpers not know how to read? No-one has ever claimed we know how abiogenesis happened. It's just that it's natural for scientists to assume natural causes for the phenomena they study, such as the origin of life, or they couldn't be scientists. It's why your guru Mr Tour stopped being a real scientist when he decided to become a preacher instead.
@@littleacorn2244 Ok, I just read his entire post. Then I pulled up the link he referenced. From there, there were many other links with articles. I found stated principles loaded with could-be, can-be, maybe, possibly speculations. And it's loaded with unhelpful information added to look like it's telling you they're on to something. Are you guys reading this and not seeing the cleverly fabricated just-so claims? They MUST appear like they are making progress in abiogenesis or they lose their funds. Those appropriating the funds don't have a clue of what they are reading. And neither do you. You guys really need to develop critical reading skills as well as real biochemistry, molecular biology, and then about interdependent body systems for critical reading of evolution articles.
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".
@@slsmith181 Ok, I'll humor your self imposed ignorance. What "evidence," would you accept? What criteria would you accept? What god is going to dance to your tune? ANY god, by definition is superior to you, so what makes you think he would obey your demands? Would a king allow you to order him around? Hell no. He would stomp you into the ground for being so presumptuous. You don't go around ordering kings around and thinking they will kiss your ass just because you think you are so great.
@@TheGuy.. You are right. Science can't prove that God does OR does not exist. It is not a scientific question, so it has no place in scientific research.
Why don't you publish papers? Well James, because you have nothing relevant to say. As simple as that 😁 I'm a Christian, just like you! But I'm a Catholic, we don't deny reality just because it goes against a particular way of interpreting scripture.
Technically, the Catholic church hasn't taken an official stance on the science behind abiogenesis, but they do insist it happened at god's will. They don't have to take a stance on it right now, because there's no robust and well-agreed scientific theory for how it happened, yet. If we get to the point where there is, I suspect they will take the same attitude they take to evolution: it happened under god's guidance. A far cry from Mr Tour's fundamentalist denial.
Any amount is sufficient to be the basis for more complex molecules. Given the right impetuses, nature does have “natural” affinities” for other things in nature. And Tour knows (or should know) that. “Vast mixtures”, wouldn’t such mixtures given the right environmental conditions create environments for a variety of “mutations” ?? As far as Tour bringing science to the masses. Here’s one thing to consider… even he does not know Everything. He’s basing conclusions upon what is currently understood in a specific discipline. He then is drawing upon any gaps in the scientific literature to posit some “supernatural” agent. An agent he nor anyone else can empirically prove even with the most delicate of measurements & techniques. And he then asks everyone else to trust his limited scientific knowledge. The main point is this… scientific research must stick to the scientific method of “discovery” of empirical phenomena. Otherwise science becomes merely another source of superstitions, myths & supernaturalism.
Exactly. The origin of life on earth is a fascinating scientific question, yet Mr Tour fanatically opposes all research into it, while claiming to be a scientist. Apparently science is raining on Tour's religious beliefs, so he decided to drizzle back.
There are numerous OOL conferences held every year. If Tour was actually interested in convincing other scientists he could request time and present his anti-OOL evidence at one of these professional conferences. Tour isn't interested however. He knows his idiocy would get him laughed off the stage. That's why he only make creationist propaganda videos for his ignorant True Believer followers.
Tour invited many top researchers of the field. All declined except Cronin. They don't want to engage Tour because they want to keep their funding and don't want to have their work destroyed.
@@linusloth4145 Sadly it comes down to funding .. I have seen the Mathias Desmet report where he proved that over 80 % of all science research since 2003 has been fakes .
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.
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?
I am fascinated by some scientist that go to and extreme to BS most of us because this is not our field of study. They use there knowledge to boost and boast themselves. Where is the truth in in what they say?? For me I want the truth. Thank you Dr. Tour for giving us some insight into your world and knowledge. It's a shame that the rest of the scientific community can't or won't be so forthright.
The rest of the scientific community is too busy laughing at Mr Tour, who stands on his own, except for his devoted worshippers. The real scientific community, which Mr Tour left years ago, is busy trying to understand how nature works. Mr Tour is only interested in his religious fantasies.
@MithrasTheElder You have no clue what you are talking about. Tour has exposed the junk science which cut off the flow of grant money to those in the field.
In the last eight years Tour has made dozens of anti-OOL videos and given dozens of talks in church basements screaming about how OOL research is WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! In all that time and all that effort he hasn't spent a single minute writing up what he thinks is RIGHT. Any clown can throw rocks from the sidelines. Let's see Tour put his science where his mouth is and publish a peer-reviewed paper on what OOL research should be doing.
Under all the fraudolence there still is a man who (contrary to his flock) knows how science works, he knows (contrary to his flock) how the peer review process works. In other words: He knows that he can't get his lies, misrepresentations and irrelevanvies published. He also knows that his flock has no idea of any of this and does not care because Team Jesus.
@@linusloth4145 Yes if the evidence presented can pass scientific muster. Creationists like Tour won't even try because they know their GAWDDIDIT! garbage will never be scientific.
@@linusloth4145 Do I get this right? You seem to be under the impression that, only a handful of largely unqualified fringe scientists who predominately do not work in this field who, without an exception are ALL affiliated with a right wing Christian pressure group which publicly states that they want to turn the US in a theocracy…that those guys are right and tens of thousands of people with all kinds of different fields of science, nationalities, cultural and religious backgrounds, are part of a massive conspiracy? Impressive stuff!
I would like to thank all the trolls (who can’t answer Dr. Tour’s five questions) for increasing the engagement of his videos. Bravo to you all! May the Lord bless you. Shalom.
@MithrasTheElder Aaaaand still can't respond with any actual rebuttals. Thank you for proving my point. And for added engagement! Keep those rolling, by all means. May the Lord bless you. Shalom.
@@gregorybatz7297 No evidence, then? Of course not, you love the magic you believe in. Oh, I'm happy to give Mr Tour exposure. That way, more folk will be aware of his anti-scientific baloney. Perhaps even Rice U. might notice.
Actually, Tour's points about the origin of life and the role of chemistry in prebiotic conditions are oversimplified and conveniently ignore key findings in the field. While it's true that amino acids found in meteorites are in mixtures, modern chemistry is actually able to isolate and use these compounds for further studies. The argument about the "chirality" problem has also been addressed by research showing that life can work with both "left-handed" and "right-handed" molecules under certain conditions. The Miller-Urey experiment, and subsequent studies, also showed that amino acids can form under simulated early Earth conditions, which is a significant step towards understanding abiogenesis (abiogenesis is the scientific study of how life arose naturally from non-living chemical compounds on early Earth). And the claim that scientists can't make progress because of "mixtures" actually overlooks advances in synthetic biology, where researchers successfully assemble complex molecules even from mixed chemical environments. Furthermore, science doesn't need to rely on theological perspectives to explore these questions; it's about testing hypotheses and gathering evidence, which is exactly what scientists continue to do. Does that satisfy?
@@seanpol9863 No. I have dug into some of these papers, and Dr Tour is spot on. None of what you replied (and I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you took) addresses the five challenges he has as proffered. I have an example of some researchers saying the quiet part out loud about the "prebiotic clutter" chemistry if you would like the link.
-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?
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.
-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.
Some molecules have been synthesized in debatable conditions that could represent early earth. The problem is purity, yield and conflicting reaction conditions and many more things that render them useless to have explanatory power.
-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....?
-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.
@@Belmondo_RH A ribozyme is not a regular enzyme like metabolic enzymes as it does only facilitate some gene regulatory reactions. Read the supplements to this paper. All they did was intelligent design with a lot of polymerases and PCR and bought nucleotides in high purity. This is not prebiotically relevant by any means.
@@linusloth4145 Tour clearly and repeatingly lied about peptide formation under whater. Dozends of research papers confirm his fraudolence. Just as it is the case with all of his other lies.
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.
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. 📜🪱🐛🦖🐁 \ / 🤴🙏👶👧 🛣👵🙏
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 A ribose, as well as other saccharides, can form all over the place. The question is whether or not there was any information-for-life-code? Was it capable of replicating?
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.
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.
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!
AHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH your funny but u made god cry with your lie
@@Belmondo_RHI disagree with your comment
@@tristanmaxwell8403 "I disagree with your comment" That means very little to me, I've seen what you agree with.
@ apparently it means something to you, you keep replying 🤦♂️
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!!
Jim, I feel your pain. The field of OoL really hasn't progressed much since Miller-Urey, but the field still pretends they are making progress. But theorizing and speculating isn't sufficient to claim progress. And sadly, people have wasted careers trying to make the next big step from Miller. We are now three generations away from the famous 1952 experiment, with almost nothing more to show. The parallel in physics is string theory.
"The field of OoL really hasn't progressed much since Miller-Urey" Just becuse you ignore decades of research, does not mean it did not happen.
@@Belmondo_RH
Decades of research and significant progress are two very different things; let's not confuse the two.
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.
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.
Dr. Tour thank you so much for succinctly explaining this dilemma in abiogenesis. I remember biochemistry back in medical school thinking, “Wait a minute!” Learning the steps in DNA replication and transcription and the large number of proteins required to do that, also knowing that those proteins cannot be manufactured without the DNA, RNA apparatus. As a young Christian med student I saw immediately how this absolutely defeated the idea of cellular abiogenesis. The simple probability of these two hugely complex systems developing in some pro biotic soup is statistically impossible for either one alone, not to mention both simultaneously and co-dependently. Your expertise and passion for sharing this and your love for Jesus is so encouraging. When I try to explain this to my 36 year old son, who is a high school AP biology teacher, who has “deconstructed” his faith, he falls back to a “God of the Gaps” defense. I would love to hear you comment on that criticism some time. Thanks again! God bless your work!
Yeah, I'll bet you'd like to hear a defense of the god of the gaps fallacy you folk worship. May Apollo be with you in your Christian darkness, and light your way out.
❤ This man is right up there with Dr.Jordan Peterson ❤
As if that was a compliment.
@@Belmondo_RH ROTFLMAO! I haven't seen you on this channel before, but you may as well know there is a particular troll who think I'm you, or you're me, or we're both sock puppets for someone else. Just fyi.
@MithrasTheElder Don't claim him, makes you look bad. He is very uneducated.
@@Belmondo_RH Hilarious, you think you are qualified to judge people more successful and respected than you will ever be?
@@daveblock I've rarely come across anyone as scientifically illiterate as you, dear.
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?
Mortal man can‘t create GOD‘s breath of life in his laboratory. ❤
good thing gods breath aint real or can u show it to me
soul? DOESNT EXIST
@@zuukash 😂
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.
Love you dr James I’m in to science now because of you and John Lennox ❤❤
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.
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
no the information is simply the animo acids themselfses im sorry you didnt learn that but in the case of this were it appluies the amino acids ARE the information
and no not really there is no gap in chemestry and abiogenesis chemestry NEcceracy leads to abiogenesis
thats what their assembly theory shows
or tries to show
the creationist ppoint of ´specified information´and ´shanon information´ are creationist lala points which they made up
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!
@@mirandahotspring4019 what are you trying to imply? because many people creates god, so therefore there is no god? or something?
@ Christians forget that their god is just one of many. There are currently about 2.3 billion Christians (Pew research) on a planet of 8.2 billion. The vast majority of people reject the Jesus/god concept.
It's pretty arrogant for Christians to claim their god is responsible for the "spirit" in everyone on the planet!
Practically every society has a god or gods. They can't all be right, but they can all be 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 !"
@@shakdidagalimal yeah 😂😂😂😂😂it's done
I appreciate your speaking in mostly layman's terms about these scientific problems rather than talking over the heads of those listening.
Tour speaks in layman's terms to laymen because the science community knows his objections to OOL research are pure creationist bullsh!t.
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 speaking the truth! As a chemist, I completely agree with your observation that molecules, especially complex ones like DNA, don't self assemble. It takes a lot of work and planning to create mokecules. It takes intelligence!
*_It takes intelligence!_* - Why? And whose intelligence? Lucifer's? Allah's? Vishnu's? Buddha's? True, _modern_ DNA molecules won't self assemble from scratch, but that's not the proposal, as you should bloody well know if you're a real chemist. DNA was additional to far simpler structures used as a scaffolding long since disappeared.
They just love the Kool Aid don't they.
They just can't understand that molecules linked as letters in an alphabet, making words (codons) producing a code to be translated to a different molecular alphabet for templates to construct the parts of molecular machines would require a mind. They don't understand that nature has no mind that cares about reaching functional goals. They can't see that as design but somehow they can look at other things they've never seen and they'd assure you it was designed.
Plus, they think that in order for you to know it's designed that you Must know who the designer is. That's real stupidity for you.
@@TheGuy.. Translation: "It's magic, I tell you, it's MAGIC!!!!!" Where's the magician? "You can't see HIM, HE's invisible!!!!!"
@MithrasTheElder Been over this. Where's your magic ? Oh, you believe the universe magically poofed itself into existence hahaha.
@@TheGuy.. Sweetie, we leave magic to you believers in it. We do nature, which we can test and verify. When you have evidence for your magical god, do let us know.
You do important work!
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"
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.
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.
All of the universe to support and sustain life requires immense understanding in mathematics, chemistry, physics, engineering, biochemistry, light, electricity, magnetism, and absolutely an awareness of time. How can any person of reason grant super natural levels of understanding to unguided inanimate matter.
Tell me, do snowflakes know how to assemble themselves, or are they carved by snowflake pixies? Or is it just inanimate matter assembling itself according to its molecular structure?
Life evolved to fit the parameters which existed. The parameters weren't preplanned for our specific form of life.
@@littleacorn2244 Assertion without evidence. Not even your idol Hitchens would have taken it seriously.
@MithrasTheElder What is the likelihood of water's special geometric and physio-chemical characteristics to come into being compared to this intricate thing don't coming into existence? What is the likelihood of earth having excess liquid water compared to the opposite, etc.?
@@linusloth4145 Sweetums, we don't have your divine revelation to imagine we know everything just like you. We have to deal with the universe we know. Water is structured the way it is, and not any other way, and we don't claim we know why the laws of this universe are the way they are. If you want to imagine you god carefully crafted the water molecule to make snowflakes, you go right ahead. We'll call the funny wagon to take you away.
Because scientific papers should advance science, and it does nothing to advance science to say "I don't see how it's possible so it must be magic".
That's why Tour doesn't publish any papers on OOL. He desperately _wants_ his followers to think Tour's supernatural Magician did it.
Give it up. I've pointed out to you numerous times that nobody is claiming, "magic," except you trolls. If we were to encounter an alien race who was more technologically advanced than us, it would SEEM like magic, but it isn't. They just have more advanced knowledge than we do. Please, pull your head out and stop using stawman arguments.
@@codonmatrix4510 What's the functional difference between MAGIC! and GOD SPOKE IT?
@@codonmatrix4510oh the irony and hypocrisy
@@BillG8718
Listen to the video.
Keep up the great work Dr. Tour! God Bless!
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?
Abiogenesis fantasy
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.
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.
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.
@@jockyoung4491I’m sorry not trying to stir something up but how is what he quoted irrelevant?
@@basedchad7026
Because the quote is not about the origin of life, but about the RNA World hypothesis. He was talking about details. And I'm not even sure the quote is accurate because I can't find it anywhere. So I don't know the context and neither does the commenter.
@@basedchad7026 There is no evidence that is a real quote. It appears on the Reasons To Believe site as "someone told me Orgel said this..." Orgel also died 18 years ago so the quote even if true is not applicable to what be know about RNA's history today.
I am a chemist Dr Tour, your evaluation on the flaws behind chemical reactions which have been posited by the OOL researchers are true. The primordial soup theory is a complete fallacy. Thank you
Nope. Your assertion without evidence can be rejected with good reason.
@MithrasTheElder Did you just assert this assertion without evidence? Guess what I'm doing next...
@@linusloth4145 None of you creos have any evidence for your belief in magic, nor for your faith abiogenesis is in some unspecified way impossible. It's why I don't credit them.
@MithrasTheElder You don't have any evidence that objective truth exists, that our senses trustworthily describe the outside world, that the past existed and many more things that you are taking on blind belief.
@@linusloth4145 Of course we have evidence, dunce! It's called trial and error. If you seriously think the world outside your ears ain't real, I'll give you one bit of advice: don't go out playing in imaginary traffic. You might find that's all too real. Unlike the god you slavishly worship.
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.
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 TH-cam 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 promote it. He said he will be looking into it.
Keep on pushing Jame 👏🏼
You really are the Eric Dubay of Biology. Well done!!
And you guys are the Joe Hanvey? He shines flashlights at an upside down bowl and says that can explain 24 hour sun in Antarctica. You guys turn the bowl rightside up and dump in a bunch of chemicals and say that can explain the origin of life. Well done!
@@donut2099 For a none naturalistic orogin of life you literally have to believe in the supoernatural. Claiming that life originated on any other way than by natural means you have to believe in magic. "No! Chemistry is not enough..some sort of magic MUST have been involved!" That is your position in a nutshell. Amazing!
Not to mention that you have to ignore a pile of science...just as flat earters do.
So please...enlighten us: What ill-defined supernatural/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ whatever, which apparently is not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science…is it that was necessary for life ans how do you know??
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.
I see James is back lying about origin of life research again. Guess he didn’t learn his lesson after all
He has to preach to his faithful - they pine without a regular dose of creationism to reassure them their god is real.
Your are just reinforcing your shaken blind beliefs.
@@linusloth4145 Blind? We certainly haven't seen your god in action. Have you? It's not been for want of looking.
@@linusloth4145 "Your are just reinforcing your shaken blind beliefs" Nobody projects as hard as a creationist.
@ You are projecting your own psyche on me as I demonstrated in another thread.
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…😅
Abiogenesis fantasy
-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
If Tour is such crazy dumb Creationists why do you have such a zeal to discredit him? Deep down you know that he is an exceptional scientist and you have to discredit him to uphold and reinforce your own biases and beliefs.
@@linusloth4145 "If Tour is such crazy dumb Creationists why do you have such a zeal to discredit him?" You just answered your own question.
@ I formulated it as a conditional. Learn to read. You have been unmasked.
@@linusloth4145 "If Tour is such crazy dumb Creationists why do you have such a zeal to discredit him?"
Becasuse that is what one does with such crazy dumb Creationists.
Great THANKS ! Keep on ! Are there any news on Your 5 Basic components needed for life ?
"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.
Cope and seethe.
Intellectual truth is honourable. Here I see a man who is honest with his subject.
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?
None, assembly hypothesis is a way to take money from the public, by making mind games about measures of complex objects and the steps to make them in cross line with evolution.
After many years of origin of life research; Lee Cronin latest video talks about “existence and replication” , as if he is making a novel revelation, when in fact is just a word recycled salad from any new age book from Deepak Chopra.
Assembly hypothesis has no deliverables and it will never provide any. It doesn’t have even a clear definition of “life”.
To me , It is only a way to make a salary without accountability.
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.
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!
Yes Otangelo Grasso is a well known YEC and scientific crank, yet Tour sees fit to push his creationist pseudoscience book. Pathetic.
@littleacorn2244 all kinds of people believe all kinds of wrong things, but they can introduce you to lots of good information. I've found him to be quite accurate in the area of molecular biology. At least the stuff I've heard. He may have been the first person I heard refute the "52 cards in any order are just as probable" argument against target protein topology matching more accurately than Demski.
@@DepletedUrbranium so u heard him bullshit and u believed it ....great another science illerate who believes creationist lies
Couldn’t those amino acids get on the meteorite debris by contamination from our planet, after the meteorites have impacted our planet that is?
If a meteor impact this planet, it doesn't bounce off, it sinks.
Theoretically they could but the chemical composition of the meteorites show they didn't originate on Earth.
@MithrasTheElder Yes, and the amino acids found on any of its debris could be terrestrial following the impact. I didn't say that the meteorite would have been contaminated in a split second before it bounced back up escaping earth's gravity and then somehow we picked up a sample from it in space and found amino acids! I obviously meant that as the meteorite settled in its final resting place on earth, anything found on it could have come from earth, after the impact. Researchers finding amino acids on any part of it could make assumptions about the origin of these amino acids when an obvious conclusion; i.e., post impact contamination, should be the first assumption.
@@realnazarene5379 Look, the point is that the discoveries of organic compounds on asteroid weren't just made by looking at remnants of meteors on earth. It's bloody obvious to the dimmest intellect those could have been contaminated, so reports of organics even in the middle of such samples and not just on the surface, would be questionable.
No, the observation was made from asteroids sampled in space, and returned to earth in isolation from contamination:
_"Washington, DC-Approximately 20,000 organic molecules composed of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, or sulfur were found in samples returned to Earth from the asteroid Ryugu by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency’s Hayabusa2 mission, according to new work published in two Science papers from an international team that included Carnegie’s George Cody, Jens Barosch, and Larry Nittler."_
Look up "Organic molecules found on first primitive asteroid sample returned to Earth" on the Carnegie science site. It's not the only report of organic compounds on extra-terrestrial asteroids. Look up "Asteroids Organic Compounds" at jpl dot nasa dot gov.
Organic compounds have also been detected on places like Mars and Titan. If you think those were contaminated from earth, I'd like to know how. Even the gas giants contain methane and other hydrocarbons.
An excellent book on empirical problems encountered in origin of life chemistry is "Mystery Of Life's Origin" (2020)
Actually that's one more pseudoscience garbage book pushed by the ID-Creationists of the Discovery Institute.
Right, it's a book atheists don't want you to read.
More great books are Icons of Evolution, Zombie Science, Darwin's Black Box, A Mousetrap for Darwin, Darwin's Doubt, Your Designed Body, The Stairway to Life, The Scientific Approach to Evolution.
There's more but these are very insightful because they tell you what college biology and biochemistry books won't tell you.
@@TheGuy.. Read them all you want. Just understand they are creationist pseudoscience garbage. If you try to have a science discussion using the "science" in those books you'll get laughed out of the room, just like TheGuy here's nonsense got him laughed at.
You obviously haven't read the books or you'd be able to point out specifics of how they are wrong. You don't realize how laughable the things you atheists are saying to us that have read our books AND your books.
It's your preferred books that are loaded with pseudoscience.
Just read Icons of Evolution by J Wells or at least check out a few of his videos to get a hint of what's written and referenced in his books.
Then present me with something you think is in error. You keep failing to show how what we are presenting is in error. You just keep barking that we believe pseudoscience but then you don't substantiate it. The best I get is someone elephant hurling the names of science articles.
@@TheGuy.. All of those creationist bullsh!t books have been thoroughly rebutted for years if not decades. "Moonie" Wells was one of the biggest creationist clowns out there. You need hip waders to get through all the crap in his "Icons" brain fart.
*Then present me with something you think is in error.* I already presented you with close to a dozen scientific papers with genetic evidence for macroevolution. You yelled *NUH-UH!* and ran the other way. 😄
From Aron's wiki page.
In March 2017, Ra resigned from his position as president of the Atheist Alliance of America to run for the Texas State Senate against Republican incumbent Bob Hall.[7][25][26] The first Democratic candidate to run for the District 2 seat since 2002,[8] he dropped out of the race after failing to secure the Democratic Party endorsement.[27]
More wiki info:
Atheist Alliance International
Atheist Alliance International (AAI) is a non-profit advocacy organization committed to raising awareness and educating the public about atheism. The group supports atheist and freethought organizations around the world through promoting local campaigns, raising awareness of related issues, sponsoring secular education projects, and facilitating interaction among secular groups and individuals.
There is more interesting info on that wiki page. Kinda makes me wonder what, if any, connections they might have with antifa.
Another interesting observation is how their, "symbol" is very similar to the anarchist symbol. I presume most of you are able to search the web. It's not hard. Most of this stuff is in plain sight if you only bother to look. Follow the threads and come to your own conclusions. You can find all kinds of things if you but try.
Darling, you really are one of the dumbest folk on the planet. Are you American? If so, I'll bet you voted for Trump. Three times. Takes real stupidity to do that.
The most science can say is "we have no natural explanation for this." It can't prove there was no God, and it can't prove there is, but it can show that naturalism doesn't have a good explanation and then as human beings able to reason beyond the tools we use we should be able to understand that God beyond nature is responsible even if the tool of the scientific method can't see that even if it is true because it is limited to detecting cause and effect within nature.
Actually, science has come up with natural explanations for lots of stuff folk like you used to think was magic, like weather and the seasons. Just because it hasn't found an answer for the origin of life yet, doesn't mean your favourite sky-daddy, whichever it is, did it.
@MithrasTheElder Science was developed by those with a Christian view of the cosmos, not by chance but because it is just the one you need to think there are laws, the laws are unchanging, and consistent around the cosmos.
That's why the nation where science developed were the Christian ones. Protestant Christianity in particular.
That science has found many cases where there were laws put in place by the Creator rather than case by case intervention to produce this or that effect does not change the fact that there are important places where it has been unable to do so and the more we study it the more it looks like there is no natural explanation.
BTW, Mithras was a member of a distorted version of the Trinity. I made a video on it.
@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 *_Science was developed by those with a Christian view_* Nope, it was developed against the enraged opposition of the Christian church of the day. They're still smarting over Galileo.
Science today, as before, is a secular pursuit, because religion has nothing to contribute to it. The most they can do is try to ban it, which they have tried.
*_That science has found many cases where there were laws put in place by the Creator_* - You're begging the question, assuming there is a magical sky-daddy, then claiming science discovers its laws. In the hundreds of years of scientific research, we've seen no gods, no miracles, just natural causes. I see no reason that shouldn't continue.
Oh and sweetiepuff, I'm not a trinity.
@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982so because we don’t have an answer to something….that shows we shouldn’t use naturalism?
Many cultures helped create and use science not just Christian ones.
@@therick363 by "use naturalism" I presume you mean methodological naturalism while conducting experiments via the SM. No, I am not saying that. I am saying because we DO use it, we can't expect it to be able to prove a cause comes from beyond nature. We need to be bigger than the tools we use. Tools like the SM. It may only be able to conclude "we have no good natural explanation yet" and that is as far as it can go. But we can go farther and reasonably conclude the explanation is supernatural.....at least in instances where we have studied a question a long time and the more we learn about it the less plausible proposed natural explanations seem. It is not reasonable to appeal to the supernatural as a reflex response.
Your last statement, while not technically untrue, skirts the vast historical evidence that science was developed and progressed primarily in Christian nations and only from there spread to the rest of mankind. Instead of denying it by pointing out minor contributions that didn't last from elsewhere, it would be better if you just accepted it and asked why that is true IMHO.
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.
Why don’t they teach this in high school?
Teach what? "This" is pretty vague...
Good point. It was clear to me.
@@TheGuy.. You don't even know which way is up!
@MithrasTheElder Oink oink 🐷🐷.
Perhaps you'll understand that
@@TheGuy.. Tour's minions deleted my reply, but I do thank you for showing me exactly what a True Christianᵀᴹ is. Every time I look at your posts, I think of Jesus.
Here is something else to think about. Satan's problem, was trying to replace God with himself and "become" god. What do you think these atheists are trying to do? They think THEY, as well as humans in general, are gods because they try to toss out the real God and take His place.
Do you spend sleepless night worrying about Cthulhu too?
@@littleacorn2244 No, do you spend sleepless nights worrying about the God of Abraham and, "creos?"
@@codonmatrix4510 *No* Why not? I thought mythological boogeymen scared you?
@@littleacorn2244 Well, THERE'S your main problem, you THOUGHT.
@@codonmatrix4510 *you THOUGHT.* You should try it sometime.
Can you please critique the amyloid hypothesis?
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 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.
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. 😆😆😄😄
@@daveblock What problem? We can't go back in time, so we need to figure out the moving parts as good as we can. And there is no definitive answer to any of this yet. But steady progress is being made. Parts of the puzzle are solved, parts of it are still very puzzling. That's the adventure.
It's sad that you limit all possibilities and discard everything only done in a lab. It's very dishonest because I don't see you denying all 90% of the science that makes our lives work today.
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. 😆
Where are your peer reviewed links?
James stop granting people stuff it gets confusing just tell the facts!!!🎉
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.
@@cocoloco5533 That's a Bulverist claim. Prove it. Funding the OoL research is like funding a search for the true Santa Clause.
It's better to fund nanotechnology research because perhaps through this research we can find molecular machines that would destroy cancer cells or other viruses...Oh, that would be funding Tour's work! What a great idea!
@@TheGuy.. Your post just made me realize something. How much money has been dumped into OoL/abiogenesis? How much money would it take to actually prove something that never happened? It would be never ending because it will never be proven. Think about that. A never ending supply of grant money being used to "research" something that never happened, and therefore will become a never ending fountain of funding.
Gotta admit, it's pretty clever.
@@codonmatrix4510 That's a point I make. Abiogenesis by natural processes will never happen. If they knew the chemistry and the obstacles they'd realize that. They don't know the chemistry, or they DO know the chemistry but continue in promoting their fantasy so that they can justify their lifestyles.
I'd rather have my tax money going into Tour's nano chemistry research to find cures for diseases/cancer/etc.
Excellent point.
@@TheGuy.. It would also explain the constant false claims of being just a few years away from doing it. Oh darn, missed it by that much. Oh well, we almost got it, send more money. Gotta keep the hype train rolling.
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 .
Exactly RIGHT! Imagine a snow globe with all the flakes floating around. That is analogous to how materialist's view the universe and life on Earth beginning. No MIND to bring the "flakes" together! It all happened randomly with NO GUIDANCE!!
Can't you turn the questions around and say that secular science is trying to disprove GOD by claiming OoL can be duplicated in a lab? Isn't that what is basically happening?
No. Secular science says nothing about any God or Gods. OOL is studied for the same reason all natural phenomena are studied - to better understand the natural world.
What @cocoloco5533 said is true. The fact of evolution didn't disprove god, why would demonstrating how abiogenesis happened be any different? Sure, it would disprove certain naïve ideas about god based on a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, but we're already way past that. Even the Catholics accept evolution, and you can't get holier than the pope!
YT needs to remove the top-newest feature. It is ridiculously biased and suppresses truth.
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.
5 days and 1500 posts of Tour's YEC cult followers chanting JESUS! JESUS! JESUS! 😄 All science so far!
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.
So, apprently other (unnamed) people have already published his "OOL is impossible" critiques.
Yet strangely no one can find those critiques in the peer-reviewed literature, only on creationist sites like this one.
He is piling lie upon lie...and hs flock just eats it up...
I think Mr Tour has allowed his religious beliefs to overcome his rationality. It does not make him a credible critic.
@MithrasTheElder He is the premium brand Kent Hovind.
@@Belmondo_RH Well, Mr Tour is tenured at Rice. Were he to start insisting publicly the earth is only 6000 years old, his tenure might come for review! He doesn't accept evolution, that's for sure.
Clueless. Papers are only published and peer reviewed on work that is funded to show evidence something happens. You said he lied about proteins forming not forming in water and autocatalytic reactions, I challenged you to back up those claims and I got crickets. Im laughing at U.
@@daveblock Here's a small sample of publications about abiotic synthesis of polypeptides and RNAs:
Boron-assisted abiotic polypeptide synthesis. Yuki Sumie1, Keiichiro Sato, Takeshi Kakegawa, Yoshihiro Furukawa. Commun Chem. 2023 May 11;6(1):89 doi: 10.1038/s42004-023-00885-7.
Borate-guided ribose phosphorylation for prebiotic nucleotide synthesis. Hirakawa Y, Kakegawa T, Furukawa Y. Sci Rep. 2022 Jul 19;12(1):11828. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-15753-y.
Is boron a prebiotic element? A mini-review of the essentiality of boron for the appearance of life on earth. Scorei R. Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2012 Feb;42(1):3-17. doi: 10.1007/s11084-012-9269-2. Epub 2012 Apr 17.
Energetics of Amino Acid Synthesis in Alkaline Hydrothermal Environments. Kitadai N. Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2015 Dec;45(4):377-409. doi: 10.1007/s11084-015-9428-3. Epub 2015 Mar 22.
Boron in Prebiological Evolution. Franco A, da Silva JAL. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2021 May 3;60(19):10458-10468. doi: 10.1002/anie.202010616. Epub 2021 Jan 22.
Thioesters provide a plausible prebiotic path to proto-peptides. Frenkel-Pinter M, Bouza M, Fernández FM, Leman LJ, Williams LD, Hud NV, Guzman-Martinez A.
Nat Commun. 2022 May 11;13(1):2569. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-30191-0.
There's lots more where that came from.
Oh, and here's a review of abiotic polynucleotide synthesis:
Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis. Mahipal YadavRavi KumarRamanarayanan Krishnamurthy. Chem. Rev. 2020, 120, 4766-4805
Plenty more where that came from, too.
Let's take a quick gander at some of the underlying misconceptions held by (overwhelmingly) Christian fundamentalists about abiogenesis research. First, they correctly point out that modern life has a specific suite of highly complex and specialised macromolecules, such as proteins, polysaccharides, and the nucleic acids RNA and DNA. They point out, again correctly, that it is a very difficult problem for abiogenesis to explain. So far, so good.
Where they virtually all go astray is in the naïve, not to say silly expectation that abiogenesis research is trying to show how all these _modern_ macromolecules spontaneously self-generated from primordial soup by random processes. Creationists do love the word "random." Well, if life had emerged that random way, it would have been a one-time and stupendously inexplicable event, so unlikely as to have been virtually impossible. Yet here we are, with no magical gods to explain it at hand, either. So the origin of life remains an interesting mystery - well, interesting to non-fundamentalists.
They love this caricature or straw man so much they're all oblivious that research in abiogenesis isn't postulating some ridiculously improbable random event. No, it is focused on identifying far simpler chemically dynamic systems governed by underlying physicochemical principles, that could also involve inorganic components (minerals and clays), and might include far simpler precursor molecules that could cycle or replicate in a stable manner.
They are not even looking for _the specific_ historical pathway that actually resulted in abiogenesis. There would be no way of confirming any suggested pathway as genuinely historical anyway, since abiogenesis has not left any paleontological record the same way that evolution has a fossil record.
But even though we might never be able to discover _the actual_ historical pathway, there is considerable hope that through systems chemistry, general chemical processes can be identified with specific examples that could in principle be used by a pathway from non-life to life. Once such chemical systems established themselves stably, they could evolve in the direction of increasing stability by incorporating new polymers, and new ways of storing information, hence provide a plausible pathway for abiogenesis.
Any serious student who is interested in a discussion of where research is actually at today, where it's headed, and what its prospects and limitations are, could start at this brief and readable review - it's a bit out of date (2013), but still worth a gander to see the ideas that are really being kicked around and tested, as opposed to the nonsense claimed by Christian fundamentalists:
*The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know.* Addy Pross and Robert Pascal. Open Biol. 2013 Mar;3(3):120190. doi: 10.1098/rsob.120190 - it's available online though obviously you'll have to google as YT won't link.
Tour's creationist groupies won't read a word of this. Scientific knowledge is scary and need to be avoided at all costs!
@@littleacorn2244 Yeah, I know, the groupies don't do science. They can't understand the big words. Mr Tour can. though, which is why his attitude is far more heinous than theirs. But I posted this for us, not them. I'm not saying the review authors are the last word on abiogenesis, or that their ideas are all necessarily true. It's more a matter of pointing out this is an active research field, and not a dead one as creos would prefer.
To put it somewhat crudely, put up or shut up! You have the blueprint for a living cell, in fact, any number of different models. You have access to all of the chemicals and minerals that you might need. Make a living cell. Just one. You can't, and to make one single cell is just the beginning, the examples we have can autonomously find and assimilate sustenance, relieve themselves of waste and, procreate. Nonsense from Christians? You might look in your own back yard.
@@billpowell9527 Put up what, or shut up why, sweetiepoo? Do you bible-thumpers not know how to read? No-one has ever claimed we know how abiogenesis happened. It's just that it's natural for scientists to assume natural causes for the phenomena they study, such as the origin of life, or they couldn't be scientists. It's why your guru Mr Tour stopped being a real scientist when he decided to become a preacher instead.
@@littleacorn2244 Ok, I just read his entire post. Then I pulled up the link he referenced. From there, there were many other links with articles.
I found stated principles loaded with could-be, can-be, maybe, possibly speculations. And it's loaded with unhelpful information added to look like it's telling you they're on to something.
Are you guys reading this and not seeing the cleverly fabricated just-so claims?
They MUST appear like they are making progress in abiogenesis or they lose their funds. Those appropriating the funds don't have a clue of what they are reading. And neither do you.
You guys really need to develop critical reading skills as well as real biochemistry, molecular biology, and then about interdependent body systems for critical reading of evolution articles.
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.
_they just DO not and WILL not “get it”_
Yes that applies to theists and apologists.
Btw-your post was some god of the gaps there
Please provide scientific peer reviewed evidence of ANY god or creator.
Stop the deceit.
😭😭😭 🍼🍼🍼 🚼
@codonmatrix4510 immature, typical, weak, fake and cowardly failure to answer a question.
That would be a poor place to look for evidence. Please provide scientific peer reviewed evidence that God doesn't exist, lol.
@@slsmith181 Ok, I'll humor your self imposed ignorance.
What "evidence," would you accept? What criteria would you accept? What god is going to dance to your tune? ANY god, by definition is superior to you, so what makes you think he would obey your demands?
Would a king allow you to order him around? Hell no. He would stomp you into the ground for being so presumptuous. You don't go around ordering kings around and thinking they will kiss your ass just because you think you are so great.
@@TheGuy..
You are right. Science can't prove that God does OR does not exist. It is not a scientific question, so it has no place in scientific research.
Why don't you publish papers? Well James, because you have nothing relevant to say. As simple as that 😁 I'm a Christian, just like you! But I'm a Catholic, we don't deny reality just because it goes against a particular way of interpreting scripture.
Technically, the Catholic church hasn't taken an official stance on the science behind abiogenesis, but they do insist it happened at god's will. They don't have to take a stance on it right now, because there's no robust and well-agreed scientific theory for how it happened, yet. If we get to the point where there is, I suspect they will take the same attitude they take to evolution: it happened under god's guidance. A far cry from Mr Tour's fundamentalist denial.
Any amount is sufficient to be the basis for more complex molecules. Given the right impetuses, nature does have “natural” affinities” for other things in nature. And Tour knows (or should know) that. “Vast mixtures”, wouldn’t such mixtures given the right environmental conditions create environments for a variety of “mutations” ??
As far as Tour bringing science to the masses. Here’s one thing to consider… even he does not know Everything. He’s basing conclusions upon what is currently understood in a specific discipline. He then is drawing upon any gaps in the scientific literature to posit some “supernatural” agent. An agent he nor anyone else can empirically prove even with the most delicate of measurements & techniques. And he then asks everyone else to trust his limited scientific knowledge. The main point is this… scientific research must stick to the scientific method of “discovery” of empirical phenomena. Otherwise science becomes merely another source of superstitions, myths & supernaturalism.
Exactly. The origin of life on earth is a fascinating scientific question, yet Mr Tour fanatically opposes all research into it, while claiming to be a scientist. Apparently science is raining on Tour's religious beliefs, so he decided to drizzle back.
intersting funny dude
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.
There are numerous OOL conferences held every year. If Tour was actually interested in convincing other scientists he could request time and present his anti-OOL evidence at one of these professional conferences. Tour isn't interested however. He knows his idiocy would get him laughed off the stage. That's why he only make creationist propaganda videos for his ignorant True Believer followers.
Tour invited many top researchers of the field. All declined except Cronin. They don't want to engage Tour because they want to keep their funding and don't want to have their work destroyed.
@@linusloth4145 They don't want to waste their time with a disingenuous creationist clown like Tour. Cronin only gave Tour an audience out of pity.
@@linusloth4145 Sadly it comes down to funding .. I have seen the Mathias Desmet report where he proved that over 80 % of all science research since 2003 has been fakes .
@@cocoloco5533 You are coping so hard it is off the charts.
🙂🌎⏳🙏♥️
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!
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.
How did life start? Thats easy. GOD. end of discussion.
That's because you've nothing intelligent to say.
PROVE IT….oh you can’t? NOT end of discussion
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.
I am fascinated by some scientist that go to and extreme to BS most of us because this is not our field of study. They use there knowledge to boost and boast themselves. Where is the truth in in what they say?? For me I want the truth. Thank you Dr. Tour for giving us some insight into your world and knowledge. It's a shame that the rest of the scientific community can't or won't be so forthright.
The rest of the scientific community is too busy laughing at Mr Tour, who stands on his own, except for his devoted worshippers. The real scientific community, which Mr Tour left years ago, is busy trying to understand how nature works. Mr Tour is only interested in his religious fantasies.
@MithrasTheElder You have no clue what you are talking about. Tour has exposed the junk science which cut off the flow of grant money to those in the field.
@@daveblock Sweetums, I'm a biologist and biochemist. Tour is neither, and hasn't a clue what he's blethering about.
@@daveblock How much grant money has Tour taken for his work on nanocarbon?
@@littleacorn2244 Irrelevant
Ah yes I dinally found the channel of the clueless snakeoil salesman.
In the last eight years Tour has made dozens of anti-OOL videos and given dozens of talks in church basements screaming about how OOL research is WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! In all that time and all that effort he hasn't spent a single minute writing up what he thinks is RIGHT. Any clown can throw rocks from the sidelines. Let's see Tour put his science where his mouth is and publish a peer-reviewed paper on what OOL research should be doing.
*_...publish a peer-reviewed paper on what OOL research should be doing._* - Pigs will evolve wings first!
Under all the fraudolence there still is a man who (contrary to his flock) knows how science works, he knows (contrary to his flock) how the peer review process works.
In other words: He knows that he can't get his lies, misrepresentations and irrelevanvies published.
He also knows that his flock has no idea of any of this and does not care because Team Jesus.
@@Belmondo_RH Do you think a peer reviewer will accept a paper that destroys his field and life's work?
@@linusloth4145 Yes if the evidence presented can pass scientific muster. Creationists like Tour won't even try because they know their GAWDDIDIT! garbage will never be scientific.
@@linusloth4145 Do I get this right? You seem to be under the impression that, only a handful of largely unqualified fringe scientists who predominately do not work in this field who, without an exception are ALL affiliated with a right wing Christian pressure group which publicly states that they want to turn the US in a theocracy…that those guys are right and tens of thousands of people with all kinds of different fields of science, nationalities, cultural and religious backgrounds, are part of a massive conspiracy?
Impressive stuff!
I would like to thank all the trolls (who can’t answer Dr. Tour’s five questions) for increasing the engagement of his videos. Bravo to you all!
May the Lord bless you. Shalom.
Thank you for exemplifying the wisdom of Christianity! ROTFLMFAO! When you or Mr Tour manage to find any evidence for your sky-daddy, let us know!
@MithrasTheElder Aaaaand still can't respond with any actual rebuttals. Thank you for proving my point. And for added engagement! Keep those rolling, by all means. May the Lord bless you. Shalom.
@@gregorybatz7297 No evidence, then? Of course not, you love the magic you believe in. Oh, I'm happy to give Mr Tour exposure. That way, more folk will be aware of his anti-scientific baloney. Perhaps even Rice U. might notice.
Actually, Tour's points about the origin of life and the role of chemistry in prebiotic conditions are oversimplified and conveniently ignore key findings in the field. While it's true that amino acids found in meteorites are in mixtures, modern chemistry is actually able to isolate and use these compounds for further studies. The argument about the "chirality" problem has also been addressed by research showing that life can work with both "left-handed" and "right-handed" molecules under certain conditions. The Miller-Urey experiment, and subsequent studies, also showed that amino acids can form under simulated early Earth conditions, which is a significant step towards understanding abiogenesis (abiogenesis is the scientific study of how life arose naturally from non-living chemical compounds on early Earth). And the claim that scientists can't make progress because of "mixtures" actually overlooks advances in synthetic biology, where researchers successfully assemble complex molecules even from mixed chemical environments. Furthermore, science doesn't need to rely on theological perspectives to explore these questions; it's about testing hypotheses and gathering evidence, which is exactly what scientists continue to do.
Does that satisfy?
@@seanpol9863 No. I have dug into some of these papers, and Dr Tour is spot on. None of what you replied (and I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you took) addresses the five challenges he has as proffered. I have an example of some researchers saying the quiet part out loud about the "prebiotic clutter" chemistry if you would like the link.
-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:)
Look this video up.
Evolutionists HATE When You Bring This Up
Well, that's because vomit is repulsive.
@MithrasTheElder Your "arguments," are as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had been starved to death.
@@codonmatrix4510 Barf.
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.
-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.
Some molecules have been synthesized in debatable conditions that could represent early earth. The problem is purity, yield and conflicting reaction conditions and many more things that render them useless to have explanatory power.
-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.
-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.
@@Belmondo_RH A ribozyme is not a regular enzyme like metabolic enzymes as it does only facilitate some gene regulatory reactions. Read the supplements to this paper. All they did was intelligent design with a lot of polymerases and PCR and bought nucleotides in high purity. This is not prebiotically relevant by any means.
@@linusloth4145 Tour clearly and repeatingly lied about peptide formation under whater. Dozends of research papers confirm his fraudolence.
Just as it is the case with all of his other lies.
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?
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. 📜🪱🐛🦖🐁 \ / 🤴🙏👶👧 🛣👵🙏
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.
@@cocoloco5533 A ribose, as well as other saccharides, can form all over the place. The question is whether or not there was any information-for-life-code? Was it capable of replicating?