I HAVE a Ph.D., in Oceanography, a very interdisciplinary field. I learn a lot from you, and feel your content is in no way diminished because you don’t have a Ph.D.
@@simonbirchhansen3573 well, my qualifying exam had questions in: applied math, chemistry, biology, physics, fluid dynamics, geophysical fluid dynamics, meteorology, and I likely forgot one or more due to trauma.
No, because unlike quacks like James and Hovind, this guy knows how editing works and can say things concisely without droning on for double-digit hours.
My (YEC) bio teacher played a clip from one of James Tour’s videos responding to you in class today, and every time there was a clip from your video it was very clearly cut off right before you/your guest speakers could actually get to your actual points. And honestly I’m a little salty that my teacher is trying to shove that kind of dishonest pseudoscience down my throat, so now I’ve decided that I’m gonna watch all your videos about this guy out of spite, lol (and cause your videos seem cool). But seriously, thank you so much for making this kind of content. It’s really interesting, even if a lot of it goes over my head, and it’s nice to hear the actual theories and information on this topic.
You should force him to watch my content exposing him. Seriously, this moron is a teacher? Where? You should report the bastard. Or just learn from my content how he's wrong and inform your teacher as he's playing the videos.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Yup, I’m stuck at a private Christian school unfortunately tho, so I don’t think reporting it would do much, especially cause they do technically meet the government set curriculum guidelines for the course (it’s just prefaced by a whole lesson and assignment poisoning the well against anything that disagrees with them first). Definitely hoping to pick some stuff up from your content to counter the strawman version of biology and evolution I’ll undoubtedly be taught this semester.
@@kaielival you could make a creationist bingo. Some terms to include that will highly likely pop up: - we came from a rock - the first cell is unbelievable complex - since humans design things, everything is designed - "we are clueless"
It’s pretty much all over at that point. I mean, Tour is literally claiming that if you don’t accept his gods as the creator of all life, you have to posit an actual Archean laboratory manned by Protozoa, I guess, building bacteria?
@@marcosolo6491 it amazes me how fanatical creationists can be. And they know they are only denying the science because it flies in the face of their holy books creation myth
It's obvious you put a lot of time and effort into this, Dave. I sincerely hope you never feel like any of this work you did was pointless or wasted. It most certainly was not. Just the fact that this work of yours will live on indefinitely on the internet is incredibly valuable to those of us who are susceptible to conmen, like James Tour. This type of content is the antidote to PT Barnum's "sucker born every minute".
Daddo, did you know that there are many different nuclides that are used to do radiometric dating? Maybe you should learn literally anything about radiometric dating. Also, "con man" is not precisely the right word to describe James. He's a fraud. Charlatan is also acceptable.
@@ElonTrump19 the asteroid (Not a meteor) was dated using zircon as the dating method, the assumption is that due to earth and the asteroids forming from the same planetary eccretion cloud, they would have coalesced around the same time, it is quite possible the earth is much older than an asteroid however, as asteroids would be leftovers from planetary eccretion
@@ProfessorDaveExplains What a video! It is the single best "response video" I have seen so far. It is information-rich and backed by strong, scientific evidence with plenty of references. Hats down Dave! It is like the entire NATO alliance invaded a single beach on a deserted island in the middle of the ocean and bombed it into oblivion ;) I am really impressed with the amount of science behind it. Live long and prosper Dave! ;)
All of biology is chemistry, investigating its effect on lifeforms. All of chemistry is physics on a macro level beyond the atomic scale. There is no limiting factor that would prevent any of these three to happen EVERYWHERE.
I fell asleep watching Potholer54, and woke up to James Tour speaking, not knowing where Autoplay had dumped me. My only thought was, "oh no, he's spreading." So glad to find I was safely on Professor Dave Explains. Whew. . .
@@stycks3008 I'd recommend making a playlist, or using "play all" within one of your favorite channels. If left to chance you may end up with a ridiculously loud video hours in. I can't sleep without ambient noise, otherwise silence gives way to screaming and crazy sleep paralysis nightmare stuff super easily.
Its funny how the you tube algorithm always leads to bullshit pseudoscience and conspiracy theories eventually. It's like "this one's had enough reality, let's see if he likes lies!"
I got an advanced degree in Maths. Yet there are branches and applications of maths of which I am almost clueless and which I would have to spend a good amount of time studying to bring myself up to speed. Just because we may have expertise in a given subject doesn;t automatically mean we are expert in every facet of the subject. That's why you have people with Masters and Doctorate degrees that still take courses and spend many hours studying.
I'm a professional musician. I studied music theory and can play 12 instruments ranging from the didgeridoo to the guitar. No one is shocked when they find out that while I am an expert guitarist, I can't play a violin or a mandolin barely at all. I can't even play Bass Guitar very well, and that's literally just a deeper tuned guitar. I dont understand why people think scientists or mathematicians could, let alone do, know about every scientific or mathematical discipline. Science, much like music, requires highly specialised knowledge and training. An astrophysicist might know the basics of particle physics, but why should they have expert knowledge? The same with music, yes, music theory gives me a base to play any instrument, but why should playing the guitar make me an expert in the violin?
The thing about Masters and Doctorates is that the person becomes more and more specialized, meaning they are more and more knowledgeable in a smaller and smaller area of expertise. Pretending that you have a doctorate therefore you have more generalized information in other specific areas is literally an oxymoron.
I may never fully understand all of the language, but you make the concepts so easy to understand. Thank you. PS- I just started reading your book "Is That Wi-Fi Organic", and it's amazing!👍
@@juniorsir9521 can you show actual evidence instead of just saying that he's wrong and moving on? It's really annoying when people do stuff like this.
It’s so much more viscerally satisfying to see him take the hollow insults and return them in kind when Dave acknowledges just how rude and foolhardy this guy was being
What's actually also funny is that that graph does not actually represent the dunning-kruger effect, even though it is often used that way. It seems kind of ironic using that graph to represent the dunning-kruger effect confidently even though it is unrelated
@@QuantumEgghead That’s what I immediately thought of: the tree falling in the forest. As though the insects, mice, raccoons, and everything else in the forest aren’t there to experience the tree falling.
@@fostena duh, that's not nuklear fusssion, that's CONVECTION coz it's balls of gaseous plasma burnin' in the vacuum of spaec without oxeegin 'n' without gravutashinal klaps... somehow.... but also electric anodes and magnetism and earthquakes and reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!! ......seriously, that's how idiotic some of these two-bit hacks sound......... the Sky Scholar and Thunderbolts debunks were beautiful examples of how dumb these morons really are...
They are trying to make it sound more unlikely. Since they see the existence of unlikely events as proof of God's existence they are done. This of course is nonsense because given large enough sample sizes unlikely events should be expected.
You do realize that in this context the companies get their products by extracting them from living systems right? It's like me buying tires from a store and using them to try and find a natural route to building cars.
@@GodzillaFreak can you elaborate? I'm not really sure what your point is. I'm not sure what companies you mean since there would be no companies 3-4 billion years ago when abiogenesis would be happening.
@@GodzillaFreak no the point is that figuring out pathways requires testing one variable at a time-namely, the one you are specifically interested in-so buying chemicals eliminates irrelevant and unnecessary variability. Likewise when we are interested in testing the effect of temperature on boiling water we don't use different volumes in each experiment. It is also much cheaper. You guys also are propagating a fallacy that pretends that one must recreate the entirety of natural history in a test tube, in one fell swoop if one is to effectively study anything in nature. That's not how reductionism works.
As a non-PhD scientist myself I always bristle up when people try and use that as an attack. Oh yes, I don't have this one shiny piece of paper that magically makes me into a "real" scientist. I have two lesser pieces of paper that are apparently meaningless, because you absolutely cannot be a "real" scientist without the fanciest one.
In debate it is a "call to authority". Ie you dony have facts or a logical argument so you rely on a title to declare something unquestionably factual. It is the opposite of science
I just watched a friend successfully defend her PhD theses and all the hard work shows, but also you could clearly see the other PhD’s tendencies to uptalk themselves at length before the questions, they are clearly proud of all the work and the achievement , so it’s not surprising to see them put a sine qua none value on the title…
The irony is that James bringing up the "magical car assembly" only serves to show that its possible for complex systems to emerge over millions of years. Consider early man and ask, is it possible for this organism to ever make a car? They have no tools and all of the car components are essentially "just rocks". Yet hundreds of thousands of years later, boom, we have a car. 🤔
I have a Ph. D. in Zoology and I think having a science Ph. D. shows how much there is to know and how fascinating it is to learn and investigate. Don't make much money but I am so glad to understand how research works (which is one of the purposes of a university education, IMHO).
Why does Dave's smile at 1:56 look so wholesome and cute, but also terrifying and deadly. It only goes to show how badass Dave really is, and I LOVE him for it. Keep the good work up Dave.
Yeah but he's misrepresented Tour and not explaining his side. If "Professor Dave" is correct researchers would ready documented life coming from nothing at some point. Miller Uray (how ever your spell it) expirement and other like it only claim to create the building blocks to life, but not non life to life. Just give a good definition of life and try observe it coming from not life. Changing genes around is not what I'm talking about because you already have life to star with.
@@email2hector Give us some time. It apparently took about half a billion years for life to emerge on earth and we've only been studying abiogenesis for a hundred years, if that long. Scientists are not omniscient and work slowly and methodically.
@@email2hector maybe watch the first video, the one that pissed off Tour so badly he had to make fourteen videos (milking it much?) to argue against it. It goes through the basics of what is known since Miller-Urey, which is quite a lot! They are being very careful, though, because they don't want to create a life form that could endanger the existence of our own ecosystems. So, they are going step-by-step, so they know they understand each part of what they're doing. Besides, it's a fairly complex process, after you get to a certain point, to safely make something totally new. You don't want them to just start making life that could be dangerous, do you? Just look at what a single virus has done to our whole planet the last nearly 2 years. And think about what a completely new type of organism than had ever been on the planet before could do. I don't know about you, but I'm _glad_ they're taking their time!
I'm a retired lawyer, not a scientist. Even without knowing this science, I recognize an epic takedown when I see/ hear one. Well done, Professor Dave.
@@achyuththouta6957 British system, refers to the last two years of secondary education after you’ve done your GCSEs. A-levels are done in these years.
This man really had the audacity to say “just because a person speaks with confidence doesn’t mean they know what they’re talking about” to his audience because he knew they wouldn’t take the time to actually apply that same logic to him. This guy is something else
He knows his particular audience do not apply logic at all ... Just quote from an old broken book ... it's truly worrying that so many do it .. and have the vote ..
You sound like a man who knows without a doubt in his soul..........that what you say is complete and total.........bullshit. Here's an idea, how about you take his challenge and explain to all of us, buffoons, just how organic life began champ? I'll wait. All talk and no walk, putz.
I studied Psychology in college / grad school. I had a professor who was so old that he could have grandfathered into being licensed to be a counselor. He was always focused on research, stayed on top of his field of interest, but not much more. He told us that and he said that he did not get licensed because there was so much NEW research and theories and treatment modalities in between when he went to school and that time, that he said he would not know enough to be efficient. That is literally in the same field. Now, I don't mean that one automatically forgets everything else, but you have to - HAVE TO - keep up with the field and I have the impression that this chemist went to school, got his PhD, got a job and learned all about this job, published in that narrow scope, but never kept up with the rest of the field and surrounding research. Now, he just speaks for the general knowledge of the 80ies and assumes that is the be-all-end-all. My personal example: I got a counselling degree. I took the class for diagnosing clients when the Diagnostical (and Statistical) Manual was the second revision of the 4th edition, basing all of it on a decades old model. Then, towards the end the DSM-V came out. I audited the new class and boy, there were a lot of changes! Anxiety disorders were spectrumized, so were Autism disorders. Axis - functional groups in all previous versions of the manual were abandoned completely, just to name a few changes. Would I have been able to counsel without it? Sure! But would I know the latest theoretical basis? Not so much! Would I have made a fool out of myself when discussing underlying theory with a younger generation colleague? For sure!
Yeah, this is why I side eye old people who use the piece of paper that says they finished a degree in Psychology _(before age 30)_ to defend their views, prove they're smart, etc. Despite being completely out of the field for many decades.
I studied psychology, I don’t have a degree in the field. But I focused on old school theories, and studied Freudian theory in Berlin as well as various derivations. What I see happening in psychotherapy often is a reinvention of the wheel. Everyone says Freud or Jung or Adler or Kohut etc are outdated, and then they rehash the basic ideas slapping a new label on old wine and not referencing back. Contemporary psychology is fairly strange in this regard. I would argue that many old school psychologists would be perfectly qualified today with the exception of certain political correct social protocols.
@@matthewkopp2391 I would disagree with that anyone is rehashing psychoanalysis nowadays. Since the mid-70s, counseling moved towards data driven models and new therapies need to prove to be at least as effective as proven ones. Sure, there will always be cheaters and liars that p-hack or straight up make up data, but overall, that’s where the field moved toward. Some key aspects came out of that which proved to be universally useful: unconditional positive regard toward a patient, active listening, empathy. If you use these 3 principles, you can mostly do good as counselor. To pretend that one theory explains why something in someone’s memory is what it is is just pretentious. And for therapy’s sake, it doesn’t even matter. What matters is how you help the patient to live with it. Oh, and yes, I call them patients. Not clients, customers or any of that bs. If you are sick, you go to the doctor and you are a patient. If your brain is sick and we want to get past the stigma of mental health, let’s stop pretending this is anything different- they are sick or they do preventative care - no matter, they are patients. So, if you deal with something that right now just bothers you, you are the same way a patient as someone getting their blood tested for pre-diabetes.
Literally straight out of Kent Hovind's book. I remember he had a video response debate with Aron Ra and after Aron made like three points in half an hour, Kent responded with a 5 part video series that droned on for OVER SEVEN HOURS.
The reason it takes 14 parts is because people like him have no real content. They have to keep rambling the same nonsense in 18 different ways and make their following fall for it.
Everytime you show the dunning-kruger graph, i think of one of our professors who actually has it hung up on his door and it's the first thing you see before you can see him, it has always been funny to me.
The way this guy speaks about this stuff shows a lot. He doesn't talk like a scientist, but like a preacher that needs your money. His brain is actively fighting to keep his current ideas.
Nobody who works for such as the Discovery Institute, AiG, etc, can call themselves a scientist because they will reject any evidence which conflicts with their religion.
@@eduardor9390 your English is very good and imo it was very obvious that you were talking about James, not Dave. Not sure why you were misunderstood. If you hadn't said that English isn't your native language, I would have never guessed (it isn't for me either)
Based on the replies it seems like the only responses from Tour followers are 1) Attack Dave's credentials (despite him interviewing numerous experts and citing several dozen peer reviewed articles in this video) 2) Re-stating points that were addressed in the video, because they didn't watch the video. Sad.
@@braija . I like how you threw liberals in there... for some bizarre reason. You should have said “politicians”, unless of course you are certain that there is one specific way of thinking that is the “right way”. I fail to see how “liberals” or “conservatives” for that matter fit in with you list.
These videos are so smooth and calming to listen to. You can turn them up on and do anything else, read a book, play a game or exercise. These videos are great for listening for the facts and listening to then for fun.
It is amazing that 14 episodes of incomprehensible "scientific" nonsense with such precision can be destroyed in a short hour. I enjoy the way you break down the arguments of James Tour with real science without having to resort to distasteful ridicule of him. It's OK to point out his complete lack of knowledge while explaining things in a relatively understandable way. Love it!
I just watched his talk at Texas A&M University and everything you say rings true Prof. Dave. The big-upping himself, appealing to emotions with confidence, fallacies, ignorance and delusion. He is obviously a smart man but he is also obviously bias in his agenda and that agenda is superstitious woo woo that has no foundation in science or reality. His emotional beliefs and faith have clouded his rationality.
I just *love* the "look at this complex task, do you think it can be completed with [all limiting factors that a human can come up with]" question. The fact that the idiots still using this question didn't even consider that the answer might simply be "yes, it'll just take a while" speaks volumes. Entertaining video.
James is living proof that you can do anything if you put your mind to it. Whenever I'm feeling really nihilistic and I've started thinking about how incompetent I am, I always remember this: If James Tour was able to become a scientist, then I can become whatever I want.
I mean, if I had a couple million years of free time I'd probably be able to make a car without knowing anything about it, just by randomly putting shit together xD
well yes, i dont think you'd even need a couple million, trial and error on the parts of a car, assuming you had the parts already, without the parts perhaps longer sure. but its a bit of a bad argument since you're a rational thinking human being putting it together.
@@brianbarber5401 i think people are missing the point to be honest, for example Dr james tour and his debate with Lee Cronin. it ultimately came down to understanding how it happened, he wasn't denying it happening, he also said that he didn't say it couldn't have been by natural processes, he wants to know the process or mechanisms by how it happened, which was in relation to Lee's primordial soup statement. in which Lee said they dont know as of yet, but he knows its there, it happened. which neither are denying.
So just like everyone else who has tried to debunk you (Eric Dubay, Globebusters, Ben Davidson and Pierre Robitalle) he just repeats the things you debunk and pretend that's an argument.
Here I am 36 mins into this video because the flow of information is densely packed and compelling enough to maintain attention. School would have been fun if every teacher was this good.
Tour published another video about "false science behind abinogenesis" about 3 days ago. I am 6 minutes in and all I heard is: "they are mean because I believe in God", "Dave has more views than me", "prebiotic soup definition straight out of the kindergarden level textbook", "molecules don't care about life" and "whining about research + media coverage". Why do I have a feeling that he haven't learnt a thing?
That's exactly the expected from an indoctrinated religious zealot. You can't get rid of the dogma when it's burned this deep in your brain... It's sad.
Imagine James Tour as a homicide detective. He’d spend his entire career pontificating how the murderer was never found and how clueless we are on who actually committed the murder. Meanwhile insisting it was a scary spooky ghost 👻 who actually did it.
While the ACTUAL detectives have already identified and apprehended the real culprit, submitted the evidence to court which then subsequently charged and convicted that person with murder.
Hey Dave! I stumbled across your videos through this debunk series against Tour, and it has really helped me understand what my in-laws are thinking and what to say to them when they start to spout pseudoscience with the utterly misplaced confidence these types usually have. So thanks! I owe you one!
Dave, I didn't realize how much biochemistry theory on life origins has advanced since I last looked into it well over a decade ago. Thanks so much for all your work in finding and presenting/explaining all of that research in an understandable format. Great. It's actually proven that life can emerge through natural processes. Fascinating.
I peeked my head into that room and probably have never felt so small It's absolutely mind-blowing just how much they've managed to discover, observe, and reproduce with so little precursory information. Unfortunately, due to the emergent nature of this field, many cry that it lacks any emperical aspect, which is patently false to anyone viewing without a strong bias
It's one of the most rapidly advancing disciplines in science right now, going way beyond what evil powers I wield my own science for. Hell, I've considered jumping ship just so I can make synthetic reptiles for fun in the near future, as it won't be long before synthetic life in and of itself is a widespread thing. All juvenile jokes aside... yeah, it's completely fascinating how much has been answered at this point. Hell, Moderna exists solely _because_ abiogenesis is largely understood at this point, and I'd *love* to see some apologist hack argue against that. Their name literally means "modern RNA" (quite clever and subtle, imo) and they're primarily based on producing synthetic RNA for medical purposes. It's why they were first to market with a COVID-19 vaccine. Without origin of life research, Moderna wouldn't exist... and they're not exactly a startup either, as they've been around for quite awhile now. They're far from the only one, they're just the most popular one I know of, so they're who I chose to cite here. But yeah... it's way beyond simple lab work at this point... this discipline has real-world effect far beyond what the common populace is even aware of, and has for years... and the insulting irony is that the very people it helps try to say that it doesn't exist. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you... sometimes literally.
Man, when you described the darwinistic tendencies of autocatalytic RNA enzymes I spontaneously got a huge smile on my face. Not because of how much it dunked on Tours, but just the very concept of molecular autocatalytic selection. It's absolutely mesmerising, it just made me so happy that this can happen.
@@keithlucas6260 I...I don't understand how that relates to what I said? I used the term 'darwinistic' to describe the natural selection-like mechanism. I never said anything about Darwin himself? Also, yes, I'll take your word that it happens in the Coronavirus, but why say the 'big whoopee' like it's not a big deal? This video was how I found it happened, and I just wanted to say that learning about this genuinely made me happy. Unless I misunderstood what you meant by that.
Life is chemistry. When you understand on the basic level, there are few surprises, just more evidence of what actually is. If Dr. Tour really understood chemistry, he would not make such foolish mistakes.
I have to facepalm when some say that there is no evolution before "life". For instance: "Without Miracles", by Gary Cziko demonstrates that evolution is the flow of energy adapting to real conditions. Even science itself adapts to new understanding of reality.
I thought he was kidding, but this man seriously has 700+ papers with 100k+ citations. This is probably the worst case of cognitive dissonance I've ever come across
And this, we might assume, us because those were genuine contributions to the field. Linus Pauling was a biochemist who made significant contributions to the field, with over 1200 papers to his name. And he also made extravagant claims concerning the health benefits of Vitamin C, none of which have stood the test of time. I'll stick my neck out and proclaim that every scientist knows this story. You can't get a science education without learning this - or to put it another way, it wasn't a science education if it skipped the part about how methodology trumps authority. That part isn't optional. By all means, make all the contributions you can, based on sound methodology. It will NEVER entitle you to declare something is true "because I say so, and I'm a famous scientist." That is an attempt to UNDERMINE science, and it's strictly a disqualification.
@@Qvcpvc909 There are many gods, all were created by human beings. Funny how gods, in holy books, never seem to know more than the ancient people who wrote those books and also share the hideous morality of those people.
@@junodonatus4906 Strawman fallacy? No one said there's many Gods, all religions have monotheistic roots (and we can see part of them today) until some got corrupted later on. All religions lead to one God. Let's Assume just for the sake of it that here and there some lied about God, how this in any way does prove that God does not exist?
Can you at least admit how staggeringly impressive it would be for all the components you need to even build the most basic life form to all be in the right place at the right time?
@@NoContextRDH it's not that impressive when you actually know what cells are made from. Biogenic elements are fairly common, especially around places with volcanic activity, biogenic compounds like lipids and nucleic acids can form spontaneously, and once they do, and phospholipids do their thing and form biphosphate layer (which is a thing they do spontaneously all the time because physics), voila, we have a protocell. RNA inside will produce proteins out of amino acids that are around anyway. Given what we know about biochemistry we can assume hot springs and such produced RNA strands all the time and all it takes is one of those strands to actually code useful proteins and it will outcompete other protocells. At first protocells use phospholipids and amino acids that are being produced in the thermal vent anyway, but if a series of mutations causes them to be able to produce those compounds on their own, they start outcompeting those that can't. That, by the way, is the reason why it's likely that new protocells form all the time, they are just outcompeted or outright eaten by modern cells that figured it all out already. TL;DR Basic elements are easy to come by, right circumstances were easy to come by, and they had a lot of time for random replication errors to start producing useful stuff.
This is super super in depth and I actually learned a whole bunch about abiogenesis, which is something I've been wondering about for a while. Thanks Dave.
Never heard of the man. However it would seem to me that he has been manufactured under a rock in deep space out of used car parts, which would explain a lot.
Wow, this bozo really really doesn't understand evolution at all. I used to work on artificial life stuff back in the late 90s and early 2000s. Basically the same sort of stuff chemists have been doing (more recently), but we used little self-replicating (or even autocatalytic sets of) computer programs with imperfect copy instructions. We didn't call them "simulations" because they actually evolved... The math is the same. Anyways, you mentioned a lot of familiar names here. Good job hitting the main concepts. Especially liked the shout-out to Eigen's Molecular Quasi-species (1988)... It is a good read. Oh, and Eric Schneider... Should check out his left handed DNA hall of Fame (and how to use entropy and information correctly when talking about biological systems.)
*Tour's* -trolls- fans insist that he's an expert on evolution as well as abiogenesis. They say he accepts evolution but some of his *DI* presentations refute that completely.
If Tour were an honest broker, he would have invited chemists specialising in the physics and chemistry necessary for origins of living systems, rather than fellow creationists, to discuss the sort of chemistry that might have preceded life. His problem is, he's terrified he might be forced to change his mind. But like all creationists, he's so afraid f being wrong, he cannot risk it. He's a small man.
The more I hear James talk about cars, the more I think "My car's motor is controlled by a computer more powerful than the Apollo Landers', and it won't go anywhere without a gas pedal. Yet the Model T Ford had neither of those and it still chugged along perfectly fine."
I think one of the most infuriating arguments he keeps making is when he says that there is no way abiogenesis could have happened because eukaryotic cells are so complex. To put into perspective what a completely absurd non-sequitur that statement is, it's like saying "There's no way someone could use a large flat plank of wood as a makeshift raft in the water, because look at how complicated naval aircraft carriers are!!!"
This is the same assembly piece fallacy over and over again with all creationists and anti-science people. Basically: "Look how complicated a modern shetland pony is! It ain't fall from the sky at pure happenstances - look how complicated the head of said pony is, the four hooves, the tail, the fur - all the hair, muscles, fibers, tissues, bones, inner organs like heart and liver of the shetland pony! Can you show me the head, the hooves, the gut, the tail just "randomly" assemble from thin air - piece by piece - as bodypart puzzle? No?! THEREFORE (in that logic): It must STILL be assembled exactly that ridiculous way, but by an assembler in the heavens for assistance!" Completely missing the point of REALITY where Shetland ponies are horse variations...just like French Poitou's are donkey variations...and like donkeys, horses and zebras they are Equus species and Equidae sub-sub-variations in hundreds of variations some outrunning in speed the ancestors in gaining speed complexity like arabian racing steeds in one lineage. Tour just conflates already complicated endosymbiotic eukaryotes with the first primitive cellular replicator forms. You will encounter hundreds of creationists using this fallacy over and over again in dozens of forms - all are still false - a very liked type of this fallacy is "complicated proteins with hundreds of aminoacids can't chain together "at random" therefore a protein maker assembling the acid by puzzle piece sets is needed! Exactly doing the same fallacy on top with absurd off-topic calculations of odds, which do not apply, because no one thinks 1 protein did a puzzle assembly dance in the middle of nowhere.
@@xXEYSPENXx "And thats why we can create any type of life form we want right?" Creation of life is not even the topic - understanding laws of chemistry leading to 100% to interlocked life complexity is the topic. "How do you go from nothing to where we are now?" There is no "Nothing" upfront of anything. All things are re-arrangements of already existing materials and forms. "We have very advanced tech, but can’t recreate life" We already created life with more complex XNA with +2 artificial 6 letters instead of the 4 we find in nature. Creating life is not the point. Understanding the laws to interlock life in nature as observation is. "that just spontaneously happened with no interference of any kind." Like 1000s of different forms snowflakes do not spontaneously happen on any hot summer day with no cloud in the sky - they need specific circumstances like low temperature, water saturation, air pressure etc. So doesn't life "spontaneously" happen _without_ acid and lipid bubble environment at specific temperature, acidity etc. That is the topic and content of the research. "But hey no one was there so all we can do is speculate I guess." No, we can actively research the circumstances to reveal the exact and similar conditions and emulate them. Like we can with millions of $ and a lot of very hard work and experiments of dozens of teams of scientists re-create a specific formed snowflake in a specific built up freezer to simulate just a pesky snowstorm in lab settting - without humans fizzle and fuzzle and puzzle a snow crystal with a needle together or something. " Nobody can prove either one" We can and do highly complicated research with hundreds of experts and highly complicated environment simulations, field tests and mathematical and chemical formulas to solve those riddles and to get a way deeper understanding that can then be exploited. Like to built new machines and new ways to synthesize chemicals.
I sit here at 40 years old, and watching your video's, I can't help but wonder, what I could of done in school, if we had teachers like you, that explain things like this and in so much detail, as opposed to the ''god squad'' idiots that done the bare minimum and down played everything, and couldn't explain the bare min function of anything I asked(or refused too). And I wonder why I lost interest, but yet, yourself, sciman dan, and a few other channels, rekindle a huge love and passion for all sciences. Love the content - I just ignore the idiot religion bit and love you explanations and knowledge. great work.
Even I, as an engineer, could easily understand the concepts of reproduction and selection as the basis of evolution. I even could put two and two together, that therefore no living organism is necessary, but only an environment with a copy mechanism like PCR, which I now learned is called an autocatalytic system. So I conclude, that the reason a scientist like James Tour doesn't understand this is not, that he does not have any expertise in this. I also don't have any expertise in this. He does not understand this, because he refuses to understand this, for religious reasons.
the thing about the car analogy is that even though I start without a blueprint, natural selection will reward me every time I put one of the pieces in its proper place, thus making it MUCH easier to eventually arrive at the end design
I just wanted to thank you for making these videos, I know you read these comments, only someone whos so good at explaining science can battle these charlatans, they use every trick in the book to try and discredit actual scientists.
The reason tour wants to debate you (under only the circumstances he sets out, of course) is that he knows anyone who takes the time to fully listen to both sides of this issue will see how wrong he is. He wants to Gish gallop you in a setting where you don’t have time to fully respond. Most of all, he wants a chance to make a few bucks.
Hmmm. I think Professor Dave makes a pretty dime off of his youtube channel, don't you think? If he were to debate Tour and come off looking like a fool, he would be in big trouble! So is it because Tour wants to make a few bucks? Or is it because Tour knows he can demolish "Prof" Dave's arguments? Believe whatever you want!
@@jimangmay " Believe whatever you want!" Look who's talking! If Tour could have destroyed Dave's point he would have done in his serie of 14 videos. Largely the time needed to debunk a 40 min video.
@@BrianBerneker Or Tour could have simply proven what he said by citing correctly the papers he tried to use to disprove abiogenesis. Which isn't what happened
more accurate car analogy: a giant mixer filled with millions of magnetised car parts and the goal is for 2 wheels to stick together in a way they form a vehicle capable of rolling down a cliff without falling apart
And then you throw the wheel back into the pot and it makes imperfect copies of itself, and assemblies that are better at rolling down the hill get to the blender first and in better shape and make more imperfect copies of themselves than ones that arrive later.
Another Nobel Prize winner refutes James Tour... presciently, from 1916, "What bearing has the appearance of these new types of Drosophila on the theory of evolution may be asked. The objection has been raised in fact that in the breeding work with Drosophila we are dealing with artificial and unnatural conditions. It has been more than implied that results obtained from the breeding pen, the seed pan, the flower pot and the milk bottle do not apply to evolution in the "open", nature "at large" or to "wild" types. To be consistent, this same objection should be extended to the use of the spectroscope in the study of the evolution of the stars, to the use of the test tube and the balance by the chemist, of the galvanometer by the physicist. All these are unnatural instruments used to torture Nature's secrets from her. I venture to think that the real antithesis is not between unnatural and natural treatment of Nature, but rather between controlled or verifiable data on the one hand, and unrestrained generalization on the other." Thomas Hunt Morgan, A Critique of the Theory of Evolution
Hi Dave, slightly unrelated but what do you use to educate yourself on the details of scientific topics you want to learn an teach? I’m impressed by your knowledge on many scientific fields.
I am a chemist myself and the guy seems like a massive discgrace.... in Germany when you earn the PHD there still is a wording when you are handed your degree (basically from older times) that your PHD can be rewoked if you carry yourself unhonorably and not befitting of the degree ... I think James has passed that point long ago.
We got that codex in Sweden as well. They don't seem to have any codex in USA. But the country being divided by science denying religious zealots and normal humans I can't see how they could without dividing the country further.
It’s a shame his university doesn’t fire him. He’s given plenty of reason to. I wouldn’t be surprised if the only reason they haven’t is that they don’t want to deal with the “they fired him because he’s Christian” outrage that would follow
Wow! Professor Dave, I admire your dedication to defend the truth of science! You have done your work very well! I have a background in in vitro selection of oligonucleotides, which is a sub-field came out of Dr. Jack Szostack's work on the Origins of Life (he received his Nobel Award because of this in 2009), and I find your explanation to be very precise, way better than many full time college professors could explain! What amazes me is your unique talent to explain complex ideas in layman's terms. I have a lot to learn from you!
Defending the truth of X is what religious apologists do. Dave isn't defending the truth of science. Dave is correcting misconceptions and helping people to understand science. Science is always a work in progress and it's not about having truth but about honest and rigorous investigation to gradually improve our understanding and hopefully get closer to truth.
"You can make molecules that can be like proteins and be like genetic material at the same time. Mutually interacting that started off as an inorganic salt." Yup, this blew my fucking mind. That is so cool!
Origin of life research is truly fascinating. It is a shame, however, that the majority of religious zealots blindly following tour because he's a scientist will never appreciate it.
@@studygodsword5937 objectively false. The combined evidence for both of them dwarfs whatever misrepresentation of science you can pull out to support out of context or factually incorrect Bible passages.
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -Iassc Asimov circa 1980
This is an absolutely mind expanding video. Being exposed to these experts is incredibly useful and educational. Thank you so much Dave for your dedication to education of we knowledge less neophytes. Please know that youe dedication to rebuttal of so called experts is so greatly appreciated. We owe you much gratitude. Please keep up the fight and know that your efforts to enlighten are advancing knowledge and are furthering education and the desire in others to learn and seek greater education.
Thank you Dave. This was very informative and eye-opening. I really appreciate your effort. I am a Muslim science graduate. I believe in my religion based on a thorough epistemological process. Even though I am not an expert in either science or religion, I try to learn more. What I don't appreciate is people bullshitting their way to establish their religious beliefs. I respect people of knowledge. Especially those who work sincerely, systematically and meticulously to find answers to problems. I really learnt a lot from this expose of yours. For a while, I was taking Dr. Tour a bit seriously, even though his proselytization really put me off. But his credential peddling, kind of made me take him a bit seriously. I can't stress how much I learned from your videos. I like the fact that you displayed some thorough analyses and also provided ample reference and also introduced some prominent researchers in the field of abiogenesis research. All of this is very beneficial to those who are not within this field but might want to gain more appreciation for it. Honesty and thorough use of our rational faculties are indispensable to our survival. Thank you for your efforts. You are helping a lot of people to learn science. May your efforts be blessed with more productivity and intellectual openings. May you find ease in learning more about the world we live in. May you continue to illuminate people with knowledge. I might have a different opinion than you on many things, but I believe in trying to find the truth. And the truth is not found by obfuscating clear rational processes. The systematic pursuit of knowledge and truth is one of the greatest gifts mankind has come upon. This is a good exchange. If Dr. Tour has any shred of real commitment to truth and any shred of humility, he should accept that he chose to talk about a matter that he doesn't understand or know. If he knew about all the research that you showed, he should take the responsibility for not revealing that knowledge to his listeners. Thank you again. Please keep up the good work.
He probably thinks the first self-replicating system was as complex as a car 🤦 considering that it could have been a single RNA molecule or a system of 2 molecules, I doubt that
Having finished a PhD in Chemistry, I can tell you that people who get their PhD can be incredibly stupid as well. I witnessed a colleague in his 4th year PhD doing a Fischer esterification with exactly 1 eq of methanol in a sea of 1M HCl, and was telling me that the esterification doesn't work on his substrate. On the other end of the spectrum, my PI, who is extremely religious (so religious that he married a pastor as his wife), does not push his religious views onto others.
Funny how most people, like conspiracy theorists and antivaxxers, not in science discredit actual scientists but we know that a lot of peole in our fields are idiots. MD PhD here and i just need to say soooo many doctors can be idiots
Next, he'll be saying how could there be water in the big bang. Oh and Matt Powell (official) has a giant inflatable banana in his garden that he calls Dr. Peel. 👍
15:57 This had me keeling over laughing. Dave: "He doesn't understand evolution." James: I don't understand evolution. Bravo. Golden. Brilliant. Also this. 30:15 "It could be that pigs could fly!"
Honestly, as someone who did a PhD in engineering in an ivy league uni, being a prof isn't even a guarantee that you understand your own damn subject. While rare, I have met professors in mechanics for example, that hardly understood the very basics of it. To the point that undergrads giggled in one of their lectures. Or other profs who didnt understand any of the research they published (probably didn't even read it). Being a Prof. these days may also just mean that you were driven by agressive ambition and you have the following abilities: 1) you can charm and sell and get heaps of funding 2) you can attract and hire people that are actually amazing 3) you are enough of an authoritive bastard, that everyone is afraid of you and just slaps your name on the awesome papers they pump out. and voila, you look like a leading world expert. sad but true.
Well, if you read a paper which happens to have three authors from a single department you usually can do a good guess at who's head of the department, who's the postdoc and who is the PhD and therefore did the work, i.e. who knows the stuff and who you want to contact if you got some questions.
@@beeble2003 "Surely you mean head of an individual laboratory or research group?" Yes, you are right, I got the structure mixed up. It' the head of the research group, then the postdoc, and then the PhD(s). So, in reverse order of the work they actually put into the paper.
Ouch, this has to hurt. But this clearly shows that even scientists aren’t immune to creationist silliness. When he brought up the car parts was already the nail in the coffin.
@@sentientflower7891 It wasn't a new argument. It was the already debunked watchmaker argument but with a car instead of a watch. It has been debunked thousands of times. But you knew that already.
@@studygodsword5937 Did you know that I've already been made aware of these so-called "prophecies" hundreds of times already? Name one prophecy that has clearly defined the future by documenting not only the time and date but specific places, number of people, and the exact event that would unfold at that exact time, date, and place as prophesized. Good luck. These so-called "Biblical prophecies" are abundantly vague and thus highly subject to interpretation. Their relevance today is merely the result of post-shadowing due to the hindsight bias of those who foolishly and carelessly propagate them as "True." People are literally making shit up as they go along. Yeah, I said it, and no, you most certainly will not prove me wrong. Sorry, but that's just the reality of the situation. Don’t like it? Well, take it up with God. Damn it.
@@studygodsword5937 I don't doubt that you are sincere but this is likely not the best place for you to play. There's nothing you can say that will convert anyone. Likewise, I doubt that, no matter what facts are pointed out to you, you will do any open minded research and reflection on your beliefs.
@@studygodsword5937 what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points.
Made it all the way through! Great stuff, even though the near entirety of my knowledge of chemistry involves cooking food, I now know enough about the various types of chemistry involved in the origins of life to confidently say that all of this is waaaaaay over my head. I've got some free time tomorrow, so I'll be back for part 2
Imagine being able to make autocatalytic reactions with cooking ingredients, sounds like an interesting chemistry experiment actually, and if failure or contamination occurs, you now have a little accidental terrarium for microbes to look at 🎃 Edit: jacolantern was the only emoji showing on my recents that wasn’t eyes closed or tear smiling
If his first argument is the “putting a car together” paradigm, I’m out. This line of reasoning has been criticized for years and still these guys not only won’t give it up, but lead off with it. The first guy who thought of this might be forgiven for just being wrong and unsophisticated but legitimately curious. The millionth revisiting by a scientist no less should result in being pummeled by rotten vegetables in the town square.
I'll be honest, when he started talking about auto-catalysts I was hoping he would just keep going with it. Infinitely more interesting than listening to James Tour talk.
The theists i know are all on the side of "everything was created naturally but there is a God with a higher plan guiding it." Meaning that proof of evolution or abiogenesis don't need to conflict with their belief. The bible doesn't need to be taken literally. People may still argue with that but sane theists agree its a personal faith thing and not a argue-with-strangers thing. Bottom line, with any religious person when presented with new information should respond with "neat!" And not "this threatens my faith, you're wrong! "
There is also no need to believe in a God of any sort. All of the major religions are clearly the product of dreams and trances. Religion in the traditional sense = dream shamanism. Joseph had a dream that it was OK to not stone Mary to death as Jewish law required. Mohammed talked to angels in dreams/trances. The mother of the Buddha had a dream her son would be God... and on and on. Dreams are where the concept of other worlds and afterlife come from. Who HASN'T seen dead friends/relatives in their dreams? If you think about the evolution of religion, getting to one all powerful dream was the logical conclusion.
Discovery institute is what sponsors James, and they don't care about truth or science. Google "Discovery Institute Legit" and the answer is : The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative non-profit think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that advocates the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design (ID). It was founded in 1990 as a non-profit offshoot of the Hudson Institute
I admire your tenacity, Professor Dave. Keep fighting the good fight, it'd be a shame if future generations referred to the enlightenment as a brief period of derangement.
Not even in watch snob community on some video about Richard Mille or Hublot I've seen such toxic comment section as on James Tours channel. Not a very good image for JT, especially considering that majority of them are christians who supposedly follow biblical objective moral standards. On debunking channels despite some exceptions it's mainly sarcasm, fun and jokes, but on the other side it's pure hatred. People hate when you tell them they are wrong :)
I HAVE a Ph.D., in Oceanography, a very interdisciplinary field. I learn a lot from you, and feel your content is in no way diminished because you don’t have a Ph.D.
What does your degree entail?
If I could make the move from hydrogeology/hydrology to Oceanography, I'd be so damn happy.
@@simonbirchhansen3573 well, my qualifying exam had questions in: applied math, chemistry, biology, physics, fluid dynamics, geophysical fluid dynamics, meteorology, and I likely forgot one or more due to trauma.
@@cguy96 I like to view your response answer as “There are two types of people in this world. Those who can interpolate from missing data.”
I have made my contribution to your research with the quantity of "fluids" I have provided in my younger beach-going days.
Can you please make this into a 28 part series so then James can make a 56 part series on your 28 things get exponential from there?
Series all the way down instead of turtles.
No, because unlike quacks like James and Hovind, this guy knows how editing works and can say things concisely without droning on for double-digit hours.
@@SoI_Badguy should probably do something about that glare from his window though. Makes him look like those pictures of Jesus.
@@VodShod Nope, keep it that way. this is science jesus.
Such a good idea!
Normal people insulting each other: ''stupid'' "jerk", etc
Scientists insulting each other: the Dunning-Kruger effect graph
Neh neh (I’m laughing under my breath)
in Tour's case regarding OOL, its a true statement, not just insult
Get dunning-kruger’d
@@zzzzz77771 Yes, he is. He is a graduate in Chemistry. And even if he were not, it is obvious he knows more than anybody related to religion
@@zzzzz77771 He has a bachelor's degree in chemistry. Anyone can safely call themselves a scientist, if they've knowledge on a certain discipline.
My (YEC) bio teacher played a clip from one of James Tour’s videos responding to you in class today, and every time there was a clip from your video it was very clearly cut off right before you/your guest speakers could actually get to your actual points. And honestly I’m a little salty that my teacher is trying to shove that kind of dishonest pseudoscience down my throat, so now I’ve decided that I’m gonna watch all your videos about this guy out of spite, lol (and cause your videos seem cool).
But seriously, thank you so much for making this kind of content. It’s really interesting, even if a lot of it goes over my head, and it’s nice to hear the actual theories and information on this topic.
You should force him to watch my content exposing him. Seriously, this moron is a teacher? Where? You should report the bastard. Or just learn from my content how he's wrong and inform your teacher as he's playing the videos.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Yup, I’m stuck at a private Christian school unfortunately tho, so I don’t think reporting it would do much, especially cause they do technically meet the government set curriculum guidelines for the course (it’s just prefaced by a whole lesson and assignment poisoning the well against anything that disagrees with them first).
Definitely hoping to pick some stuff up from your content to counter the strawman version of biology and evolution I’ll undoubtedly be taught this semester.
@@kaielival you could make a creationist bingo. Some terms to include that will highly likely pop up:
- we came from a rock
- the first cell is unbelievable complex
- since humans design things, everything is designed
- "we are clueless"
@@kaielival oof. Good luck. At least high school isn't forever
@@kaielival "Christian school", welp, that explains a lot.
I am simply appalled when he described that chemistry could not have happened because there could not have been a lab setup. WTF.
It’s pretty much all over at that point. I mean, Tour is literally claiming that if you don’t accept his gods as the creator of all life, you have to posit an actual Archean laboratory manned by Protozoa, I guess, building bacteria?
'Agreed' - my year 9 chemistry class
@@marcosolo6491 it amazes me how fanatical creationists can be. And they know they are only denying the science because it flies in the face of their holy books creation myth
I do chemistry literally all the time, it's called breathing. Turning o2 into energy
Because, you know, chemistry requires a lab. I guess alcohol forming inside fruit as yeast consumes the sugar isn't chemistry. You know, like wine...
It's obvious you put a lot of time and effort into this, Dave. I sincerely hope you never feel like any of this work you did was pointless or wasted. It most certainly was not. Just the fact that this work of yours will live on indefinitely on the internet is incredibly valuable to those of us who are susceptible to conmen, like James Tour. This type of content is the antidote to PT Barnum's "sucker born every minute".
I mean it's almost literally falling on deaf ears.
@@ElonTrump19 They don't use Carbon-14 to determine the age of the Earth. There are numerous other longer lasting isotopes to choose from.
Daddo, did you know that there are many different nuclides that are used to do radiometric dating? Maybe you should learn literally anything about radiometric dating. Also, "con man" is not precisely the right word to describe James. He's a fraud. Charlatan is also acceptable.
@@ElonTrump19 the asteroid (Not a meteor) was dated using zircon as the dating method, the assumption is that due to earth and the asteroids forming from the same planetary eccretion cloud, they would have coalesced around the same time, it is quite possible the earth is much older than an asteroid however, as asteroids would be leftovers from planetary eccretion
@@ProfessorDaveExplains What a video! It is the single best "response video" I have seen so far. It is information-rich and backed by strong, scientific evidence with plenty of references. Hats down Dave! It is like the entire NATO alliance invaded a single beach on a deserted island in the middle of the ocean and bombed it into oblivion ;) I am really impressed with the amount of science behind it. Live long and prosper Dave! ;)
James: “there was nobody to buy all of these chemicals!”
Wow James, it’s almost like they were all already there
They were there in complexes. For instance iron and sulfur are always at least oxidized or reduced. Plus exist impure as ore or dirt.
@@hondoh5720duh... it was a joke
"Chemistry can only happen in a lab"
The copper statues standing around, literally rusting because of chemistry: Are we a joke to you?
"Yes, but it's *simple* chemistry!"
Concrete curing: Am I a joke to you?
All of biology is chemistry, investigating its effect on lifeforms.
All of chemistry is physics on a macro level beyond the atomic scale.
There is no limiting factor that would prevent any of these three to happen EVERYWHERE.
@@Ugly_German_Truths true
his stomach digesting his lunch: am i a joke to you?
@@jamesgaming-kn1zz nice one
I fell asleep watching Potholer54, and woke up to James Tour speaking, not knowing where Autoplay had dumped me. My only thought was, "oh no, he's spreading." So glad to find I was safely on Professor Dave Explains. Whew. . .
Falling asleep while watching a vid with autoplay on sounds fun, might try it soon.
@@stycks3008
I'd recommend making a playlist, or using "play all" within one of your favorite channels. If left to chance you may end up with a ridiculously loud video hours in. I can't sleep without ambient noise, otherwise silence gives way to screaming and crazy sleep paralysis nightmare stuff super easily.
@@stycks3008 I dunno man, I've actually woken up to warbly synth music and some goofball mumbling about cosmic vibrations, it's just surreal
Its funny how the you tube algorithm always leads to bullshit pseudoscience and conspiracy theories eventually. It's like "this one's had enough reality, let's see if he likes lies!"
@@Chronix-
I have woke up to some right wing Christian propaganda stuff after falling asleep to science content.
I got an advanced degree in Maths. Yet there are branches and applications of maths of which I am almost clueless and which I would have to spend a good amount of time studying to bring myself up to speed. Just because we may have expertise in a given subject doesn;t automatically mean we are expert in every facet of the subject. That's why you have people with Masters and Doctorate degrees that still take courses and spend many hours studying.
I'm a professional musician. I studied music theory and can play 12 instruments ranging from the didgeridoo to the guitar.
No one is shocked when they find out that while I am an expert guitarist, I can't play a violin or a mandolin barely at all. I can't even play Bass Guitar very well, and that's literally just a deeper tuned guitar.
I dont understand why people think scientists or mathematicians could, let alone do, know about every scientific or mathematical discipline.
Science, much like music, requires highly specialised knowledge and training. An astrophysicist might know the basics of particle physics, but why should they have expert knowledge?
The same with music, yes, music theory gives me a base to play any instrument, but why should playing the guitar make me an expert in the violin?
The thing about Masters and Doctorates is that the person becomes more and more specialized, meaning they are more and more knowledgeable in a smaller and smaller area of expertise. Pretending that you have a doctorate therefore you have more generalized information in other specific areas is literally an oxymoron.
I may never fully understand all of the language, but you make the concepts so easy to understand. Thank you.
PS- I just started reading your book "Is That Wi-Fi Organic", and it's amazing!👍
You need to watch part two, where the scientists Tour cited calls TOUR the fool!😊
@@juniorsir9521 this guy Junior has no clue what he is saying.
@@juniorsir9521 can you show actual evidence instead of just saying that he's wrong and moving on? It's really annoying when people do stuff like this.
I finished the book. Excellent read.
Damn, Junior, what did you bail out for? You bailed out because you're a coward, Junior. Your fragile religious mindset has weakened you.
"Chemistry needs to happen in a lab" is the James Tour version of "spectroscopy needs to happen in a container".
Yeah, that is literally it hahahah, how can he not understand this??
😂🤣
I think James Tour's conception happened in a container, in a lab...
Bruh lol
I don't even know a lot about chemistry but he STILL sounds dumb
Having the experts rebuffing the misquotes and mischaracterisations makes this way better than a standard "debunk", cheers Dave
This is a slam debunk.
Yes - very impressive!
@@kindle139 😂
I saw this comment before watching the video, and I misread “misquotes” as “mosquitoes” . I was equally confused and intrigued
@@user-qk1xt1xw9t 😂 I read it after watching and was equally confused by the mosquitoes. Then realized my brain went 🥴
"At the peak of mount stupid."
This will stick with me for a long time. I love how Dave doesn't try to sugar coat a turd.
(4:33) "This is you." 🤣😂
It’s so much more viscerally satisfying to see him take the hollow insults and return them in kind when Dave acknowledges just how rude and foolhardy this guy was being
What's actually also funny is that that graph does not actually represent the dunning-kruger effect, even though it is often used that way. It seems kind of ironic using that graph to represent the dunning-kruger effect confidently even though it is unrelated
Great comment. Perfectly put. Lol.
The best part about it is pretty much everybody who uses that Dunning-Krueger diagram doesn't understand what the actual Dunning-Krueger Effect is.
Damn Tour really just said "no chemist mean no chemistry therefore how chemistry" when life does chemistry everyday with or without humans around lmao
It’s like he took the idea that “if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” and applied it to science.
@@QuantumEgghead except he concluded it makes no noise, like the poor ignorant brainlet he is...
@@neetard7360 Yep
@@QuantumEgghead
That’s what I immediately thought of: the tree falling in the forest. As though the insects, mice, raccoons, and everything else in the forest aren’t there to experience the tree falling.
Nah, chemistry doesn't exist without humans around. 0 chemistry at the bottom of the ocean, duh
Chemistry is impossible outside a lab, so I guess nuclear fusion is impossible outside High Energy reactors. Nevermind the stars
😂Lol I can’t , I can’t breathe 😂🤣
@@beeble2003 yeah, I was aware of that one. Beautiful
@@fostena duh, that's not nuklear fusssion, that's CONVECTION coz it's balls of gaseous plasma burnin' in the vacuum of spaec without oxeegin 'n' without gravutashinal klaps... somehow.... but also electric anodes and magnetism and earthquakes and reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
......seriously, that's how idiotic some of these two-bit hacks sound......... the Sky Scholar and Thunderbolts debunks were beautiful examples of how dumb these morons really are...
They are trying to make it sound more unlikely. Since they see the existence of unlikely events as proof of God's existence they are done. This of course is nonsense because given large enough sample sizes unlikely events should be expected.
Yep, and no nuclear fusion in the sun, totally! Tour is kinda slow
"You couldn't buy chemicals from a store" is one of his arguments against abiogenesis? Literally speechless
I think it shows his limited thinking. It is probably also related to his dislike for speculation. He’d rather have certainty even if it’s wrong.
You do realize that in this context the companies get their products by extracting them from living systems right? It's like me buying tires from a store and using them to try and find a natural route to building cars.
@@GodzillaFreak can you elaborate? I'm not really sure what your point is. I'm not sure what companies you mean since there would be no companies 3-4 billion years ago when abiogenesis would be happening.
@@alexmcd378 My point is that the companies are not synthesizing their products, rather they are extracting from living systems.
@@GodzillaFreak no the point is that figuring out pathways requires testing one variable at a time-namely, the one you are specifically interested in-so buying chemicals eliminates irrelevant and unnecessary variability. Likewise when we are interested in testing the effect of temperature on boiling water we don't use different volumes in each experiment.
It is also much cheaper.
You guys also are propagating a fallacy that pretends that one must recreate the entirety of natural history in a test tube, in one fell swoop if one is to effectively study anything in nature.
That's not how reductionism works.
As a non-PhD scientist myself I always bristle up when people try and use that as an attack. Oh yes, I don't have this one shiny piece of paper that magically makes me into a "real" scientist. I have two lesser pieces of paper that are apparently meaningless, because you absolutely cannot be a "real" scientist without the fanciest one.
In debate it is a "call to authority". Ie you dony have facts or a logical argument so you rely on a title to declare something unquestionably factual. It is the opposite of science
This
I just watched a friend successfully defend her PhD theses and all the hard work shows, but also you could clearly see the other PhD’s tendencies to uptalk themselves at length before the questions, they are clearly proud of all the work and the achievement , so it’s not surprising to see them put a sine qua none value on the title…
I get it.. you can cook the best meals but you won't be "chef" until you get that little piece of paper.
It’s official recognition you have specialist knowledge in your field that wasn’t generated in isolation and the holder is more reliable.
The irony is that James bringing up the "magical car assembly" only serves to show that its possible for complex systems to emerge over millions of years. Consider early man and ask, is it possible for this organism to ever make a car? They have no tools and all of the car components are essentially "just rocks". Yet hundreds of thousands of years later, boom, we have a car. 🤔
@@studygodsword5937 oh... Looks like you didn't watch the video. Try again, it's still there.
@@studygodsword5937 You're not very good at this.
Not just a car, but even a self-driving car
Fred Flintstone had a car, and it was made of rocks.
Checkmate.
@@blanktrigger8863 share that evidence, don't just say "there is, but he didn't show it", do what you claim they don't.
I am a Ph.D. Molecular biologist, and I would be the first to say I continue to learn everyday. Your video series are one of my go-tos!
The sign of a good scientist in any field is one who proudly says they are still learning
I am interested in looking into your dissertation Geoffrey Waldo.
I have a Ph. D. in Zoology and I think having a science Ph. D. shows how much there is to know and how fascinating it is to learn and investigate. Don't make much money but I am so glad to understand how research works (which is one of the purposes of a university education, IMHO).
Unlike james who thinks he know everything
What kind of research are you doing? I think molecular biology could be lots of things, I;m not one myself, but I am curious, it sounds interesting
Why does Dave's smile at 1:56 look so wholesome and cute, but also terrifying and deadly. It only goes to show how badass Dave really is, and I LOVE him for it. Keep the good work up Dave.
Dave is a savage
Plot twist: David is a former flat earther seeking revenge by promoting actual science.
Such a cutie 😚
🤣 Dave is the GOAT, savage confidence but it’s actually backed up by knowledge
Dave’s a fucking beast and I’m glad he exists and makes these awesome videos.
I have discovered that Dave's takedowns lose nothing upon repeated viewings. His brutal logic and rapid fire delivery construct a timeless classic.
Yeah but he's misrepresented Tour and not explaining his side. If "Professor Dave" is correct researchers would ready documented life coming from nothing at some point. Miller Uray (how ever your spell it) expirement and other like it only claim to create the building blocks to life, but not non life to life. Just give a good definition of life and try observe it coming from not life. Changing genes around is not what I'm talking about because you already have life to star with.
Agree. I appreciate the concise and rapid-fire delivery. It doesn't waste the viewer's time with inessentials.
@@email2hector Give us some time. It apparently took about half a billion years for life to emerge on earth and we've only been studying abiogenesis for a hundred years, if that long. Scientists are not omniscient and work slowly and methodically.
Aggred
@@email2hector maybe watch the first video, the one that pissed off Tour so badly he had to make fourteen videos (milking it much?) to argue against it. It goes through the basics of what is known since Miller-Urey, which is quite a lot! They are being very careful, though, because they don't want to create a life form that could endanger the existence of our own ecosystems. So, they are going step-by-step, so they know they understand each part of what they're doing.
Besides, it's a fairly complex process, after you get to a certain point, to safely make something totally new. You don't want them to just start making life that could be dangerous, do you? Just look at what a single virus has done to our whole planet the last nearly 2 years. And think about what a completely new type of organism than had ever been on the planet before could do.
I don't know about you, but I'm _glad_ they're taking their time!
I'm a retired lawyer, not a scientist. Even without knowing this science, I recognize an epic takedown when I see/ hear one. Well done, Professor Dave.
I don’t know if there’s any graphics going along with what he says but even I can keep up and I didn’t even go to 6 form… he’s brilliant
@@blindbrad4719
Normal people: "grade 12 and 13"
Bri'in: "6th Form" 🤪🤪
Great series! The video reminds me case kitzmiller vs dover.
@@blindbrad4719 What's a 6 form
@@achyuththouta6957 British system, refers to the last two years of secondary education after you’ve done your GCSEs. A-levels are done in these years.
This man really had the audacity to say “just because a person speaks with confidence doesn’t mean they know what they’re talking about” to his audience because he knew they wouldn’t take the time to actually apply that same logic to him. This guy is something else
He knows his particular audience do not apply logic at all ... Just quote from an old broken book ... it's truly worrying that so many do it .. and have the vote ..
You sound like a man who knows without a doubt in his soul..........that what you say is complete and total.........bullshit. Here's an idea, how about you take his challenge and explain to all of us, buffoons, just how organic life began champ? I'll wait. All talk and no walk, putz.
@@DanielSoto-vv3or “all walk and no talk, putz” lmao fucking what kind of weird ass talks like that
@@xenon3759 who talks like that? The guy that called you a putz, for one. A fa'real weirdo..........🤒
@@DanielSoto-vv3or TH-cam commenters will never cease to amaze me
That "huh?" clip was a weapon he should not have given to you.
Like an intercontinental ballistic missile turned against Tour.
@@totmgsrockxd9900 or an intercontinental facepalm missile...
@@totmgsrockxd9900 or a fucking tsar bomba with energy from the suns core
That and, of course, "I'm a sinner."
I studied Psychology in college / grad school. I had a professor who was so old that he could have grandfathered into being licensed to be a counselor. He was always focused on research, stayed on top of his field of interest, but not much more. He told us that and he said that he did not get licensed because there was so much NEW research and theories and treatment modalities in between when he went to school and that time, that he said he would not know enough to be efficient. That is literally in the same field. Now, I don't mean that one automatically forgets everything else, but you have to - HAVE TO - keep up with the field and I have the impression that this chemist went to school, got his PhD, got a job and learned all about this job, published in that narrow scope, but never kept up with the rest of the field and surrounding research. Now, he just speaks for the general knowledge of the 80ies and assumes that is the be-all-end-all.
My personal example: I got a counselling degree. I took the class for diagnosing clients when the Diagnostical (and Statistical) Manual was the second revision of the 4th edition, basing all of it on a decades old model. Then, towards the end the DSM-V came out. I audited the new class and boy, there were a lot of changes! Anxiety disorders were spectrumized, so were Autism disorders. Axis - functional groups in all previous versions of the manual were abandoned completely, just to name a few changes. Would I have been able to counsel without it? Sure! But would I know the latest theoretical basis? Not so much! Would I have made a fool out of myself when discussing underlying theory with a younger generation colleague? For sure!
Yeah, this is why I side eye old people who use the piece of paper that says they finished a degree in Psychology _(before age 30)_ to defend their views, prove they're smart, etc.
Despite being completely out of the field for many decades.
I studied psychology, I don’t have a degree in the field. But I focused on old school theories, and studied Freudian theory in Berlin as well as various derivations.
What I see happening in psychotherapy often is a reinvention of the wheel. Everyone says Freud or Jung or Adler or Kohut etc are outdated, and then they rehash the basic ideas slapping a new label on old wine and not referencing back.
Contemporary psychology is fairly strange in this regard.
I would argue that many old school psychologists would be perfectly qualified today with the exception of certain political correct social protocols.
@@matthewkopp2391 I would disagree with that anyone is rehashing psychoanalysis nowadays. Since the mid-70s, counseling moved towards data driven models and new therapies need to prove to be at least as effective as proven ones. Sure, there will always be cheaters and liars that p-hack or straight up make up data, but overall, that’s where the field moved toward. Some key aspects came out of that which proved to be universally useful: unconditional positive regard toward a patient, active listening, empathy. If you use these 3 principles, you can mostly do good as counselor. To pretend that one theory explains why something in someone’s memory is what it is is just pretentious. And for therapy’s sake, it doesn’t even matter. What matters is how you help the patient to live with it.
Oh, and yes, I call them patients. Not clients, customers or any of that bs. If you are sick, you go to the doctor and you are a patient. If your brain is sick and we want to get past the stigma of mental health, let’s stop pretending this is anything different- they are sick or they do preventative care - no matter, they are patients. So, if you deal with something that right now just bothers you, you are the same way a patient as someone getting their blood tested for pre-diabetes.
Imagine making a 14 part series because one guy made a single video calling you out, seems pretty desperate to me.
It feels like the digital and far less efficient version of the gish gallop.
Yeah lol he really thinks one isn't enough it's like he's afraid of dave and trying to shut him down as soon as possible.
Sounds like throwing spaghetti at a wall and hope that some of it sticks! ;-)
Literally straight out of Kent Hovind's book. I remember he had a video response debate with Aron Ra and after Aron made like three points in half an hour, Kent responded with a 5 part video series that droned on for OVER SEVEN HOURS.
The reason it takes 14 parts is because people like him have no real content. They have to keep rambling the same nonsense in 18 different ways and make their following fall for it.
Everytime you show the dunning-kruger graph, i think of one of our professors who actually has it hung up on his door and it's the first thing you see before you can see him, it has always been funny to me.
The sign is in scientish roughly translating to saying 'F you'
The way this guy speaks about this stuff shows a lot. He doesn't talk like a scientist, but like a preacher that needs your money. His brain is actively fighting to keep his current ideas.
@@user-cg2hb3ye9v oh, no, sorry if I wasn't clear enough, English is not my native language. My comment was about James Tour
@@eduardor9390 Yeah because he kinda is. He works at/for the Discovery Institute; a Christian 'Scientific' Intelligent Design Think Tank.
Nobody who works for such as the Discovery Institute, AiG, etc, can call themselves a scientist because they will reject any evidence which conflicts with their religion.
@@eduardor9390 your English is very good and imo it was very obvious that you were talking about James, not Dave. Not sure why you were misunderstood. If you hadn't said that English isn't your native language, I would have never guessed (it isn't for me either)
@@edbrackeen5979 .
What are you talking about, there is no religion in evolution.
Based on the replies it seems like the only responses from Tour followers are
1) Attack Dave's credentials (despite him interviewing numerous experts and citing several dozen peer reviewed articles in this video)
2) Re-stating points that were addressed in the video, because they didn't watch the video.
Sad.
They also seem to throw in intelligent design and then complain about ad hominem while ignoring the garbage for Tour.
I mean ... what else can they do? Refute the sources by disproving the results? That seems beyond most people ...
Didn't professor David do that first?
Those that make their money off of lies will do whatever it takes to protect those lies. THAT is a universal truth folks.
Like evolutionists, liberals and globe earthers!
@@braija . I like how you threw liberals in there... for some bizarre reason. You should have said “politicians”, unless of course you are certain that there is one specific way of thinking that is the “right way”. I fail to see how “liberals” or “conservatives” for that matter fit in with you list.
@@robertt9342 I am glad we at least agree on evolutionists and globe earthers.
@@braija So normal people with a brain capable of a logical thought proces
@@braija
Why didn't you watch the video before posting a comment here?
Are you afraid?
These videos are so smooth and calming to listen to. You can turn them up on and do anything else, read a book, play a game or exercise. These videos are great for listening for the facts and listening to then for fun.
I love hearing the actual professors and researchers talking so excitedly about their areas of expertise. :)
It is amazing that 14 episodes of incomprehensible "scientific" nonsense with such precision can be destroyed in a short hour. I enjoy the way you break down the arguments of James Tour with real science without having to resort to distasteful ridicule of him. It's OK to point out his complete lack of knowledge while explaining things in a relatively understandable way. Love it!
God, the stuff that this dude was supposed to learn in college flew so over his head that it is now threatening to contaminate pluto
I just watched his talk at Texas A&M University and everything you say rings true Prof. Dave. The big-upping himself, appealing to emotions with confidence, fallacies, ignorance and delusion. He is obviously a smart man but he is also obviously bias in his agenda and that agenda is superstitious woo woo that has no foundation in science or reality. His emotional beliefs and faith have clouded his rationality.
I see a professor dave video with the words ‘response with’ in the title and i click fast
That dunning Kruger picture with the music is right there with Scimandan's yodeling bits.
And crickets elsewhere.
,
I just *love* the "look at this complex task, do you think it can be completed with [all limiting factors that a human can come up with]" question.
The fact that the idiots still using this question didn't even consider that the answer might simply be "yes, it'll just take a while" speaks volumes.
Entertaining video.
James is living proof that you can do anything if you put your mind to it.
Whenever I'm feeling really nihilistic and I've started thinking about how incompetent I am, I always remember this: If James Tour was able to become a scientist, then I can become whatever I want.
Imao😅
I mean, if I had a couple million years of free time I'd probably be able to make a car without knowing anything about it, just by randomly putting shit together xD
You really made me laugh!
With enough time you could probably derive everything you need from first principles
well yes, i dont think you'd even need a couple million, trial and error on the parts of a car, assuming you had the parts already, without the parts perhaps longer sure. but its a bit of a bad argument since you're a rational thinking human being putting it together.
@@brianbarber5401 i think people are missing the point to be honest, for example Dr james tour and his debate with Lee Cronin. it ultimately came down to understanding how it happened, he wasn't denying it happening, he also said that he didn't say it couldn't have been by natural processes, he wants to know the process or mechanisms by how it happened, which was in relation to Lee's primordial soup statement. in which Lee said they dont know as of yet, but he knows its there, it happened. which neither are denying.
If you are that sure about your statement you can run a simulation of randomly making a simple object not a car and see the results by your self.
So just like everyone else who has tried to debunk you (Eric Dubay, Globebusters, Ben Davidson and Pierre Robitalle) he just repeats the things you debunk and pretend that's an argument.
Eric Dubious is a pathetic con man so definitely belongs on that list.
@@dogwalker666 As are the Globebusters
@@BroncoJosh last time a checked them out I was convinced it was satire, no one can actually be that Dumb.
@@dogwalker666 Yep. And remember Dave utterly ruined their channel and they had to start from scrap.
@@BroncoJosh oh damn Dave forced a channel to restart?? I gotta go watch his debunk video for that
Here I am 36 mins into this video because the flow of information is densely packed and compelling enough to maintain attention. School would have been fun if every teacher was this good.
Tour published another video about "false science behind abinogenesis" about 3 days ago. I am 6 minutes in and all I heard is: "they are mean because I believe in God", "Dave has more views than me", "prebiotic soup definition straight out of the kindergarden level textbook", "molecules don't care about life" and "whining about research + media coverage". Why do I have a feeling that he haven't learnt a thing?
Yeah it’s really pathetic.
That's exactly the expected from an indoctrinated religious zealot. You can't get rid of the dogma when it's burned this deep in your brain... It's sad.
@@zeendaniels5809 Religious zealot is one option, conartist another.
Imagine James Tour as a homicide detective.
He’d spend his entire career pontificating how the murderer was never found and how clueless we are on who actually committed the murder.
Meanwhile insisting it was a scary spooky ghost 👻 who actually did it.
:D
The J Warner Wallace approach, then.
While the ACTUAL detectives have already identified and apprehended the real culprit, submitted the evidence to court which then subsequently charged and convicted that person with murder.
@@davidsommen1324 Sadly it seems Tour kept the culprit from being convicted, as that damned ghost is still out there!
A scary ghost sounds cool though.
Hey Dave! I stumbled across your videos through this debunk series against Tour, and it has really helped me understand what my in-laws are thinking and what to say to them when they start to spout pseudoscience with the utterly misplaced confidence these types usually have.
So thanks! I owe you one!
Dave, I didn't realize how much biochemistry theory on life origins has advanced since I last looked into it well over a decade ago. Thanks so much for all your work in finding and presenting/explaining all of that research in an understandable format. Great. It's actually proven that life can emerge through natural processes. Fascinating.
I peeked my head into that room and probably have never felt so small
It's absolutely mind-blowing just how much they've managed to discover, observe, and reproduce with so little precursory information. Unfortunately, due to the emergent nature of this field, many cry that it lacks any emperical aspect, which is patently false to anyone viewing without a strong bias
It's one of the most rapidly advancing disciplines in science right now, going way beyond what evil powers I wield my own science for. Hell, I've considered jumping ship just so I can make synthetic reptiles for fun in the near future, as it won't be long before synthetic life in and of itself is a widespread thing.
All juvenile jokes aside... yeah, it's completely fascinating how much has been answered at this point. Hell, Moderna exists solely _because_ abiogenesis is largely understood at this point, and I'd *love* to see some apologist hack argue against that. Their name literally means "modern RNA" (quite clever and subtle, imo) and they're primarily based on producing synthetic RNA for medical purposes. It's why they were first to market with a COVID-19 vaccine. Without origin of life research, Moderna wouldn't exist... and they're not exactly a startup either, as they've been around for quite awhile now. They're far from the only one, they're just the most popular one I know of, so they're who I chose to cite here. But yeah... it's way beyond simple lab work at this point... this discipline has real-world effect far beyond what the common populace is even aware of, and has for years... and the insulting irony is that the very people it helps try to say that it doesn't exist. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you... sometimes literally.
Hasn’t proven shit. It’s called evidence. Much different than proof
Man, when you described the darwinistic tendencies of autocatalytic RNA enzymes I spontaneously got a huge smile on my face. Not because of how much it dunked on Tours, but just the very concept of molecular autocatalytic selection. It's absolutely mesmerising, it just made me so happy that this can happen.
@@keithlucas6260 I...I don't understand how that relates to what I said? I used the term 'darwinistic' to describe the natural selection-like mechanism. I never said anything about Darwin himself?
Also, yes, I'll take your word that it happens in the Coronavirus, but why say the 'big whoopee' like it's not a big deal? This video was how I found it happened, and I just wanted to say that learning about this genuinely made me happy. Unless I misunderstood what you meant by that.
Life is chemistry. When you understand on the basic level, there are few surprises, just more evidence of what actually is. If Dr. Tour really understood chemistry, he would not make such foolish mistakes.
Yes, I am also smart and understood that part and think it is awesome. 😅
I have to facepalm when some say that there is no evolution before "life". For instance: "Without Miracles", by Gary Cziko demonstrates that evolution is the flow of energy adapting to real conditions. Even science itself adapts to new understanding of reality.
I thought he was kidding, but this man seriously has 700+ papers with 100k+ citations.
This is probably the worst case of cognitive dissonance I've ever come across
And this, we might assume, us because those were genuine contributions to the field.
Linus Pauling was a biochemist who made significant contributions to the field, with over 1200 papers to his name. And he also made extravagant claims concerning the health benefits of Vitamin C, none of which have stood the test of time.
I'll stick my neck out and proclaim that every scientist knows this story. You can't get a science education without learning this - or to put it another way, it wasn't a science education if it skipped the part about how methodology trumps authority. That part isn't optional.
By all means, make all the contributions you can, based on sound methodology. It will NEVER entitle you to declare something is true "because I say so, and I'm a famous scientist." That is an attempt to UNDERMINE science, and it's strictly a disqualification.
"You can't explain why this happens, so it doesn't" is one of the dumbest fallacies I've heard
How about the one where an inability to explain how something happens conclusively proves that their god did it. 🙄
The arguement from incredulity rises like a Phoenix. If you don't believe that mythical fire birds can self reincarnate, that's a you issue.
@@junodonatus4906 God has ultimate knowledge and power so this is illogical
@@Qvcpvc909
There are many gods, all were created by human beings. Funny how gods, in holy books, never seem to know more than the ancient people who wrote those books and also share the hideous morality of those people.
@@junodonatus4906 Strawman fallacy? No one said there's many Gods, all religions have monotheistic roots (and we can see part of them today) until some got corrupted later on.
All religions lead to one God.
Let's Assume just for the sake of it that here and there some lied about God, how this in any way does prove that God does not exist?
So, this all boils down to a chemist pretending chemistry doesn't happen outside of a lab.
That, my friends, is a manipulation technique we call lying
And a complete lack of understanding of the world. It’s astounding to think someone could think in such a limited way.
@@keirfarnum6811 we will
Yep I magically turn water into urine, no chemistry involved.
Can you at least admit how staggeringly impressive it would be for all the components you need to even build the most basic life form to all be in the right place at the right time?
@@NoContextRDH it's not that impressive when you actually know what cells are made from.
Biogenic elements are fairly common, especially around places with volcanic activity, biogenic compounds like lipids and nucleic acids can form spontaneously, and once they do, and phospholipids do their thing and form biphosphate layer (which is a thing they do spontaneously all the time because physics), voila, we have a protocell. RNA inside will produce proteins out of amino acids that are around anyway.
Given what we know about biochemistry we can assume hot springs and such produced RNA strands all the time and all it takes is one of those strands to actually code useful proteins and it will outcompete other protocells.
At first protocells use phospholipids and amino acids that are being produced in the thermal vent anyway, but if a series of mutations causes them to be able to produce those compounds on their own, they start outcompeting those that can't.
That, by the way, is the reason why it's likely that new protocells form all the time, they are just outcompeted or outright eaten by modern cells that figured it all out already.
TL;DR
Basic elements are easy to come by, right circumstances were easy to come by, and they had a lot of time for random replication errors to start producing useful stuff.
This is super super in depth and I actually learned a whole bunch about abiogenesis, which is something I've been wondering about for a while. Thanks Dave.
Never heard of the man. However it would seem to me that he has been manufactured under a rock in deep space out of used car parts, which would explain a lot.
ahh the blind mechanic parable that is completely different then blind watchmaker parable. because he is a "scientist"
I love the banana metaphor.
A banana was designed by god for humans because it perfectly fits in our hands.
Said unironically by Living Waters (iirc)
@@XraynPR lol i think fractal wrongness fits perfectly here.
@@w__a__l__e I like watching Sir Sic for the humor of that LW series, but it's extremely cringe as well ...
Wow, this bozo really really doesn't understand evolution at all.
I used to work on artificial life stuff back in the late 90s and early 2000s. Basically the same sort of stuff chemists have been doing (more recently), but we used little self-replicating (or even autocatalytic sets of) computer programs with imperfect copy instructions. We didn't call them "simulations" because they actually evolved... The math is the same.
Anyways, you mentioned a lot of familiar names here. Good job hitting the main concepts. Especially liked the shout-out to Eigen's Molecular Quasi-species (1988)... It is a good read. Oh, and Eric Schneider... Should check out his left handed DNA hall of Fame (and how to use entropy and information correctly when talking about biological systems.)
*Tour's* -trolls- fans insist that he's an expert on evolution as well as abiogenesis.
They say he accepts evolution but some of his *DI* presentations refute that completely.
He is a Christian creationist who already is biased with a conclusion and is filtering out and attacking any evidence which contradicts this
If Tour were an honest broker, he would have invited chemists specialising in the physics and chemistry necessary for origins of living systems, rather than fellow creationists, to discuss the sort of chemistry that might have preceded life. His problem is, he's terrified he might be forced to change his mind. But like all creationists, he's so afraid f being wrong, he cannot risk it. He's a small man.
Much more than having to change his mind, he'd be sacrificing a pretty big paycheck.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Bit of a Tour de Farce, all told.
@@Leszek.Rzepecki Nice
@@RobKaiser_SQuest I think of him as Wee Jimmy Tour. ;)
The word “if” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.
If Tour did eat the entire research field, how would he explain the extreme indigestion?
Pretty obvious. Flat Earth. Duh.
Instead Professor Dave is making him eat his own words.
Hi, chemistry student here! Loved your video, man, learned tons of interesting stuff! Keep it up! =)
”I can’t build a car. Therefore God. Amen.”
I can put that car back together, doesn't make me a god, maybe I can sell my services to Tour 🤣🤣
And we're not talking about cars : most of the people I know could build a human being with very basics instructions and a little teamwork.
@@Bzuhl you mean a robot?
@@Bzuhl Ah yes. When humans _get together._
@@igamse No, it's a simpler process that takes about 9 month after an initial setup of 2min (if you're me) to 9 hours (if you're Sting)
The more I hear James talk about cars, the more I think "My car's motor is controlled by a computer more powerful than the Apollo Landers', and it won't go anywhere without a gas pedal. Yet the Model T Ford had neither of those and it still chugged along perfectly fine."
I think one of the most infuriating arguments he keeps making is when he says that there is no way abiogenesis could have happened because eukaryotic cells are so complex.
To put into perspective what a completely absurd non-sequitur that statement is, it's like saying "There's no way someone could use a large flat plank of wood as a makeshift raft in the water, because look at how complicated naval aircraft carriers are!!!"
This is the same assembly piece fallacy over and over again with all creationists and anti-science people. Basically: "Look how complicated a modern shetland pony is! It ain't fall from the sky at pure happenstances - look how complicated the head of said pony is, the four hooves, the tail, the fur - all the hair, muscles, fibers, tissues, bones, inner organs like heart and liver of the shetland pony! Can you show me the head, the hooves, the gut, the tail just "randomly" assemble from thin air - piece by piece - as bodypart puzzle? No?! THEREFORE (in that logic): It must STILL be assembled exactly that ridiculous way, but by an assembler in the heavens for assistance!"
Completely missing the point of REALITY where Shetland ponies are horse variations...just like French Poitou's are donkey variations...and like donkeys, horses and zebras they are Equus species and Equidae sub-sub-variations in hundreds of variations some outrunning in speed the ancestors in gaining speed complexity like arabian racing steeds in one lineage.
Tour just conflates already complicated endosymbiotic eukaryotes with the first primitive cellular replicator forms.
You will encounter hundreds of creationists using this fallacy over and over again in dozens of forms - all are still false - a very liked type of this fallacy is "complicated proteins with hundreds of aminoacids can't chain together "at random" therefore a protein maker assembling the acid by puzzle piece sets is needed! Exactly doing the same fallacy on top with absurd off-topic calculations of odds, which do not apply, because no one thinks 1 protein did a puzzle assembly dance in the middle of nowhere.
@@xXEYSPENXx "And thats why we can create any type of life form we want right?" Creation of life is not even the topic - understanding laws of chemistry leading to 100% to interlocked life complexity is the topic.
"How do you go from nothing to where we are now?"
There is no "Nothing" upfront of anything. All things are re-arrangements of already existing materials and forms.
"We have very advanced tech, but can’t recreate life"
We already created life with more complex XNA with +2 artificial 6 letters instead of the 4 we find in nature. Creating life is not the point. Understanding the laws to interlock life in nature as observation is.
"that just spontaneously happened with no interference of any kind."
Like 1000s of different forms snowflakes do not spontaneously happen on any hot summer day with no cloud in the sky - they need specific circumstances like low temperature, water saturation, air pressure etc. So doesn't life "spontaneously" happen _without_ acid and lipid bubble environment at specific temperature, acidity etc.
That is the topic and content of the research.
"But hey no one was there so all we can do is speculate I guess."
No, we can actively research the circumstances to reveal the exact and similar conditions and emulate them.
Like we can with millions of $ and a lot of very hard work and experiments of dozens of teams of scientists re-create a specific formed snowflake in a specific built up freezer to simulate just a pesky snowstorm in lab settting - without humans fizzle and fuzzle and puzzle a snow crystal with a needle together or something.
" Nobody can prove either one"
We can and do highly complicated research with hundreds of experts and highly complicated environment simulations, field tests and mathematical and chemical formulas to solve those riddles and to get a way deeper understanding that can then be exploited.
Like to built new machines and new ways to synthesize chemicals.
I sit here at 40 years old, and watching your video's, I can't help but wonder, what I could of done in school, if we had teachers like you, that explain things like this and in so much detail, as opposed to the ''god squad'' idiots that done the bare minimum and down played everything, and couldn't explain the bare min function of anything I asked(or refused too). And I wonder why I lost interest, but yet, yourself, sciman dan, and a few other channels, rekindle a huge love and passion for all sciences. Love the content - I just ignore the idiot religion bit and love you explanations and knowledge. great work.
Even I, as an engineer, could easily understand the concepts of reproduction and selection as the basis of evolution. I even could put two and two together, that therefore no living organism is necessary, but only an environment with a copy mechanism like PCR, which I now learned is called an autocatalytic system. So I conclude, that the reason a scientist like James Tour doesn't understand this is not, that he does not have any expertise in this. I also don't have any expertise in this. He does not understand this, because he refuses to understand this, for religious reasons.
I’m just glad there is someone out there willing to call stupid people stupid. There’s no point in sugar coating it anymore.
Tour needed this debunk.
@Pisstake Still; this one will convince the less dronistic ones.
@@NapaCat are there any of those though?
@@Forest_Fifer Yes; very few become diehard overnight.
@@studygodsword5937 Those what... few dozen hours of ranting Tourbabble were the biggest wastes of time ever spent by me.
@@sgloobal3091 Can you introduce me to Jesus?
An hour. Part 1/2. Oh boy. 🤩👌🏼
Absolutely.
Yeah all these videos are really long on either side. It must take a lot of training to keep a mind immerged in either.
the thing about the car analogy is that even though I start without a blueprint, natural selection will reward me every time I put one of the pieces in its proper place, thus making it MUCH easier to eventually arrive at the end design
I just wanted to thank you for making these videos, I know you read these comments, only someone whos so good at explaining science can battle these charlatans, they use every trick in the book to try and discredit actual scientists.
The reason tour wants to debate you (under only the circumstances he sets out, of course) is that he knows anyone who takes the time to fully listen to both sides of this issue will see how wrong he is. He wants to Gish gallop you in a setting where you don’t have time to fully respond. Most of all, he wants a chance to make a few bucks.
Hmmm. I think Professor Dave makes a pretty dime off of his youtube channel, don't you think? If he were to debate Tour and come off looking like a fool, he would be in big trouble! So is it because Tour wants to make a few bucks? Or is it because Tour knows he can demolish "Prof" Dave's arguments? Believe whatever you want!
@@jimangmay " Believe whatever you want!" Look who's talking! If Tour could have destroyed Dave's point he would have done in his serie of 14 videos. Largely the time needed to debunk a 40 min video.
@@jimangmay
You haven't watched *Dave's* two rebuttal videos, have you?
Why -won't- don't you?
@@BrianBerneker Or Tour could have simply proven what he said by citing correctly the papers he tried to use to disprove abiogenesis. Which isn't what happened
@@BrianBerneker
What is there to talk about?
I have no Ph.D. I'm a plumber and I understand this more than he does I swear. What a pompous man he is.
Einstein said if he got to live his life again, he'd be a plumber.
Your profession has nothing to do with your intelligence
@@K4inan for real? lol
@@jenm1 Well ok for you maybe, but I don't want some dummy doing brain surgery on me thank you very much.
@@sentientflower7891 🤣🤣🤣
more accurate car analogy: a giant mixer filled with millions of magnetised car parts and the goal is for 2 wheels to stick together in a way they form a vehicle capable of rolling down a cliff without falling apart
And then you throw the wheel back into the pot and it makes imperfect copies of itself, and assemblies that are better at rolling down the hill get to the blender first and in better shape and make more imperfect copies of themselves than ones that arrive later.
It could happen.
I love how extremely obvious it is that you so completely got under his skin. Good work.
Another Nobel Prize winner refutes James Tour... presciently, from 1916,
"What bearing has the appearance of these new types of Drosophila on the theory of evolution may be asked. The objection has been raised in fact that in the breeding work with Drosophila we are dealing with artificial and unnatural conditions. It has been more than implied that results obtained from the breeding pen, the seed pan, the flower pot and the milk bottle do not apply to evolution in the "open", nature "at large" or to "wild" types. To be consistent, this same objection should be extended to the use of the spectroscope in the study of the evolution of the stars, to the use of the test tube and the balance by the chemist, of the galvanometer by the physicist. All these are unnatural instruments used to torture Nature's secrets from her. I venture to think that the real antithesis is not between unnatural and natural treatment of Nature, but rather between controlled or verifiable data on the one hand, and unrestrained generalization on the other."
Thomas Hunt Morgan, A Critique of the Theory of Evolution
@@nehemiasservant9853 please elaborate
True
Hi Dave, slightly unrelated but what do you use to educate yourself on the details of scientific topics you want to learn an teach? I’m impressed by your knowledge on many scientific fields.
In some areas I refer to textbooks and some primary literature, and in others I just hire writers who are experts in those fields.
As opposed to James, who hires a composer for his dramatic soundtrack 😂
Copy pasta - ah so that's what spaghetti monster was. Exposing the plagiarists
@@ummerfarooq5383 You don't know what plagiarism is, do you?
@@alexmcd378
Of course he does.
It's when spaghetti self-replicates.
I love your work, Dave. It’s important. Please keep it up.
I am a chemist myself and the guy seems like a massive discgrace.... in Germany when you earn the PHD there still is a wording when you are handed your degree (basically from older times) that your PHD can be rewoked if you carry yourself unhonorably and not befitting of the degree ... I think James has passed that point long ago.
We got that codex in Sweden as well. They don't seem to have any codex in USA. But the country being divided by science denying religious zealots and normal humans I can't see how they could without dividing the country further.
It’s a shame his university doesn’t fire him. He’s given plenty of reason to. I wouldn’t be surprised if the only reason they haven’t is that they don’t want to deal with the “they fired him because he’s Christian” outrage that would follow
@@alexmcd378 One word: tenure
@@chriscasperson5927 or that
Wow! Professor Dave, I admire your dedication to defend the truth of science! You have done your work very well! I have a background in in vitro selection of oligonucleotides, which is a sub-field came out of Dr. Jack Szostack's work on the Origins of Life (he received his Nobel Award because of this in 2009), and I find your explanation to be very precise, way better than many full time college professors could explain! What amazes me is your unique talent to explain complex ideas in layman's terms. I have a lot to learn from you!
This talent makes a great science communicator.
Defending the truth of X is what religious apologists do. Dave isn't defending the truth of science. Dave is correcting misconceptions and helping people to understand science. Science is always a work in progress and it's not about having truth but about honest and rigorous investigation to gradually improve our understanding and hopefully get closer to truth.
Kid at the DMV: "What do you mean with 'I have to do tests'? Just give me my license, I did show you the screenshot of how many hours I have in GTA"
I love this comment
*proceeds to mow down concertgoers with a car*
"You can make molecules that can be like proteins and be like genetic material at the same time. Mutually interacting that started off as an inorganic salt." Yup, this blew my fucking mind. That is so cool!
Origin of life research is truly fascinating. It is a shame, however, that the majority of religious zealots blindly following tour because he's a scientist will never appreciate it.
@@studygodsword5937 objectively false. The combined evidence for both of them dwarfs whatever misrepresentation of science you can pull out to support out of context or factually incorrect Bible passages.
@@studygodsword5937 that is patently incorrect. Did you crack your noggin on the crystal firmament?
@Pisstake it's possible, but there are tons of creationists like him around these parts. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't a troll.
@@studygodsword5937 🤣🤣🤣
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -Iassc Asimov circa 1980
Hey prof! Loving these debunking videos. Keep'em coming!
"Not only will I poke the hornet's nest, but I'll poke it FOURTEEN TIMES!"
James Tour's brilliance is really on display again.
He's not the first to horribly underestimate me, and sadly he probably won't be the last.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains has anyone you’ve debunked ever just been like, “Oops I was wrong. Thanks Dave!”?
At least he has the guts to do what I could only in my worst nightmares (I'm afraid of wasps and hornets).
Haha none yet, and something tells me James won't be the first!
@@hawt_fiya the fact that no one has i think shows these conmen are in it mostly for money and fame... so sad
This is an absolutely mind expanding video. Being exposed to these experts is incredibly useful and educational. Thank you so much Dave for your dedication to education of we knowledge less neophytes. Please know that youe dedication to rebuttal of so called experts is so greatly appreciated. We owe you much gratitude. Please keep up the fight and know that your efforts to enlighten are advancing knowledge and are furthering education and the desire in others to learn and seek greater education.
Thank you Dave. This was very informative and eye-opening. I really appreciate your effort. I am a Muslim science graduate. I believe in my religion based on a thorough epistemological process. Even though I am not an expert in either science or religion, I try to learn more. What I don't appreciate is people bullshitting their way to establish their religious beliefs. I respect people of knowledge. Especially those who work sincerely, systematically and meticulously to find answers to problems. I really learnt a lot from this expose of yours. For a while, I was taking Dr. Tour a bit seriously, even though his proselytization really put me off. But his credential peddling, kind of made me take him a bit seriously. I can't stress how much I learned from your videos. I like the fact that you displayed some thorough analyses and also provided ample reference and also introduced some prominent researchers in the field of abiogenesis research. All of this is very beneficial to those who are not within this field but might want to gain more appreciation for it. Honesty and thorough use of our rational faculties are indispensable to our survival. Thank you for your efforts. You are helping a lot of people to learn science. May your efforts be blessed with more productivity and intellectual openings. May you find ease in learning more about the world we live in. May you continue to illuminate people with knowledge. I might have a different opinion than you on many things, but I believe in trying to find the truth. And the truth is not found by obfuscating clear rational processes. The systematic pursuit of knowledge and truth is one of the greatest gifts mankind has come upon. This is a good exchange. If Dr. Tour has any shred of real commitment to truth and any shred of humility, he should accept that he chose to talk about a matter that he doesn't understand or know. If he knew about all the research that you showed, he should take the responsibility for not revealing that knowledge to his listeners. Thank you again. Please keep up the good work.
When it starts out about car abiogenesis. Only if we are talking about how life emerged on Cybertron should James bring that up. :D
Autobots, roll out!
The quintesssons created the planet and the Transformers, have you not been reading the comics?
Do you know Cybertronian? Man, that’s old school! You need an aging SR71 with a cough and a cane to understand that!
He probably thinks the first self-replicating system was as complex as a car 🤦 considering that it could have been a single RNA molecule or a system of 2 molecules, I doubt that
Having finished a PhD in Chemistry, I can tell you that people who get their PhD can be incredibly stupid as well. I witnessed a colleague in his 4th year PhD doing a Fischer esterification with exactly 1 eq of methanol in a sea of 1M HCl, and was telling me that the esterification doesn't work on his substrate.
On the other end of the spectrum, my PI, who is extremely religious (so religious that he married a pastor as his wife), does not push his religious views onto others.
Funny how most people, like conspiracy theorists and antivaxxers, not in science discredit actual scientists but we know that a lot of peole in our fields are idiots. MD PhD here and i just need to say soooo many doctors can be idiots
Next, he'll be saying how could there be water in the big bang.
Oh and Matt Powell (official) has a giant inflatable banana in his garden that he calls Dr. Peel. 👍
15:57 This had me keeling over laughing.
Dave: "He doesn't understand evolution."
James: I don't understand evolution.
Bravo. Golden. Brilliant.
Also this. 30:15 "It could be that pigs could fly!"
Honestly, as someone who did a PhD in engineering in an ivy league uni, being a prof isn't even a guarantee that you understand your own damn subject. While rare, I have met professors in mechanics for example, that hardly understood the very basics of it. To the point that undergrads giggled in one of their lectures. Or other profs who didnt understand any of the research they published (probably didn't even read it). Being a Prof. these days may also just mean that you were driven by agressive ambition and you have the following abilities: 1) you can charm and sell and get heaps of funding 2) you can attract and hire people that are actually amazing 3) you are enough of an authoritive bastard, that everyone is afraid of you and just slaps your name on the awesome papers they pump out. and voila, you look like a leading world expert. sad but true.
Well, if you read a paper which happens to have three authors from a single department you usually can do a good guess at who's head of the department, who's the postdoc and who is the PhD and therefore did the work, i.e. who knows the stuff and who you want to contact if you got some questions.
Yeah I’ve come across that guy.
@@beeble2003 "Surely you mean head of an individual laboratory or research group?"
Yes, you are right, I got the structure mixed up. It' the head of the research group, then the postdoc, and then the PhD(s). So, in reverse order of the work they actually put into the paper.
Ouch, this has to hurt. But this clearly shows that even scientists aren’t immune to creationist silliness.
When he brought up the car parts was already the nail in the coffin.
@@sentientflower7891 It wasn't a new argument. It was the already debunked watchmaker argument but with a car instead of a watch. It has been debunked thousands of times. But you knew that already.
So basically instead of admitting perhaps he could be wrong! James decided to double down on the stupid! 🤦♂️
The typical, shoot-yourself-in-the-foot strategy employed by all Creationist charlatans.
@@studygodsword5937 did you know that Nostradamus & PT Barnum were more prophetic than anything in the Bible ?
@@studygodsword5937 Did you know that I've already been made aware of these so-called "prophecies" hundreds of times already? Name one prophecy that has clearly defined the future by documenting not only the time and date but specific places, number of people, and the exact event that would unfold at that exact time, date, and place as prophesized. Good luck.
These so-called "Biblical prophecies" are abundantly vague and thus highly subject to interpretation. Their relevance today is merely the result of post-shadowing due to the hindsight bias of those who foolishly and carelessly propagate them as "True." People are literally making shit up as they go along. Yeah, I said it, and no, you most certainly will not prove me wrong. Sorry, but that's just the reality of the situation. Don’t like it? Well, take it up with God. Damn it.
@@studygodsword5937 I don't doubt that you are sincere but this is likely not the best place for you to play. There's nothing you can say that will convert anyone. Likewise, I doubt that, no matter what facts are pointed out to you, you will do any open minded research and reflection on your beliefs.
@@studygodsword5937 what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points.
Made it all the way through! Great stuff, even though the near entirety of my knowledge of chemistry involves cooking food, I now know enough about the various types of chemistry involved in the origins of life to confidently say that all of this is waaaaaay over my head. I've got some free time tomorrow, so I'll be back for part 2
Imagine being able to make autocatalytic reactions with cooking ingredients, sounds like an interesting chemistry experiment actually, and if failure or contamination occurs, you now have a little accidental terrarium for microbes to look at 🎃
Edit: jacolantern was the only emoji showing on my recents that wasn’t eyes closed or tear smiling
If his first argument is the “putting a car together” paradigm, I’m out. This line of reasoning has been criticized for years and still these guys not only won’t give it up, but lead off with it. The first guy who thought of this might be forgiven for just being wrong and unsophisticated but legitimately curious. The millionth revisiting by a scientist no less should result in being pummeled by rotten vegetables in the town square.
I'll be honest, when he started talking about auto-catalysts I was hoping he would just keep going with it. Infinitely more interesting than listening to James Tour talk.
As a theist, I'm seriously annoyed that other theists are embarrassing the rest of us like this. There is no reason to deny science.
The theists i know are all on the side of "everything was created naturally but there is a God with a higher plan guiding it." Meaning that proof of evolution or abiogenesis don't need to conflict with their belief. The bible doesn't need to be taken literally. People may still argue with that but sane theists agree its a personal faith thing and not a argue-with-strangers thing. Bottom line, with any religious person when presented with new information should respond with "neat!" And not "this threatens my faith, you're wrong! "
@@nebulan I completely agree.
There is also no need to believe in a God of any sort. All of the major religions are clearly the product of dreams and trances. Religion in the traditional sense = dream shamanism. Joseph had a dream that it was OK to not stone Mary to death as Jewish law required. Mohammed talked to angels in dreams/trances. The mother of the Buddha had a dream her son would be God... and on and on. Dreams are where the concept of other worlds and afterlife come from. Who HASN'T seen dead friends/relatives in their dreams? If you think about the evolution of religion, getting to one all powerful dream was the logical conclusion.
Discovery institute is what sponsors James, and they don't care about truth or science.
Google "Discovery Institute Legit" and the answer is :
The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative non-profit think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that advocates the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design (ID). It was founded in 1990 as a non-profit offshoot of the Hudson Institute
@@freddan6fly So it attempts to sound like a legit institute but it's just a bunch of stupid people in a room together? Great.
I admire your tenacity, Professor Dave. Keep fighting the good fight, it'd be a shame if future generations referred to the enlightenment as a brief period of derangement.
Not even in watch snob community on some video about Richard Mille or Hublot I've seen such toxic comment section as on James Tours channel. Not a very good image for JT, especially considering that majority of them are christians who supposedly follow biblical objective moral standards.
On debunking channels despite some exceptions it's mainly sarcasm, fun and jokes, but on the other side it's pure hatred. People hate when you tell them they are wrong :)
Yeah, it's flat earth level delusional echo chamber over there.
"buffoons like kent"
i died laughing 🤣
As a student currently studying chemistry, I really hope I don't turn this senile.
You're probably fine. You'd have to be a pathological narcissist to end up like Tour.
Good lord. I just finished part one and my brain hurts. That was brutal. And there is more to go!!