@@settledown444 Yes its for celebration. Look at the testimonies in comment sections, how many people came out from the delusional atheism worldview because of Dr. Tour's work.
You know what, the choice of music is growing on me. The classical music at the beginning gets us into a calm, serene, cerebral atmosphere of "let's calmly and rationally look at some solid scientific facts" and as the lecture progresses we gradually transition into Tour's headspace of high-energy funky techno outrage
Classical music is one movement or one movement to another. Nothing compares in the realm... A reason why the Beatles stole so many riffs from the Classical music bests. People in mass didn't know at the time, but the 20% that did know weren't Beatles fans. Stealing from Chuck Berry, who used Beethoven riffs into guitar melodies.
Finally, someone sees what I see. Dr. Tour responds with class, keeps it professional, doesn't attack Dave, brings science to critique science, hence the classical. Then as the lecture progresses into solid point, BOOM, the beat comes out. Too bad people were critical of the music early on. Word has it, the producer (I know a guy) did this all pro bono and worked tireless hours on this. He really took this mob criticism to heart, and so he scrambled to touch up the music to calm people down who didn't see the big picture this masterpiece has become. He had created such a beautiful harmony with Tour's message and the music's message. Shame. Perhaps an apology is in order, and Episodes 0 and 1 have those pinned comments. Feel free.
Ive just come across this series after having heated discussions with my atheist-leaning agnostic partner about evolution and origin of life theories. This level of detail about the complexity further supports my arguments. Thank you for your thorough work. It's been a while since Ive had Chemistry but i was able to follow.
Thank you Dr Tour. Your words made me access my knowledge of chemistry terms from college. No wonder you are so successful in synthetic organic chemistry - you can see when something is wrong, and can specifically explain why.
I do not begin to claim understanding of the content addressed here, but thank God for his chosen individuals in his creation that are given the intelligence and ability to call out those with malice and evil intent in their hearts and work!
Amen, clarification counts in any context. It's a better to be factually correct than to be content "creator". Let's face it, God created the world of information.
As a scientist myself, I have to say that Prof. Dave got a thorough scientific whipping here! This video really exposes the biased (desperate) agenda of the proponents of abiogenesis. Either Prof. Dave did not understand what he was talking about or he deliberately misrepresented the data
The 24 elders (of revelation chapter 4) cast down their crowns saying: "Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created." I expect the substance of life will continue to confound materialists with its immense complexity, so far beyond human wisdom. This is a fruitful ministry brother Tour.
You are my Hero Dr. Tour! We the believers cannot win this battle on earth, but the more important battle for heaven has already been won. In the end, we will say like apostle Paul did, 2 Tim 4:7-8: " I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day-and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing." Amen and God Bless.
In this video James demonstrates his complete inability to comprehend stochastic processes by totally misrepresenting a paper I referenced, as well as research on homochirality in general by quote mining Donna Blackmond and pretending that a statement she made about symmetry breaking is somehow representative of the entire field. It's really disgusting and pathetic behavior. To learn about all the methods we are aware of by which enantiomerically pure biomolecules can arise via crystallization, which James deliberately does not discuss in this video, watch my response to this series linked below. Essentially everything in this series is James either ignoring research or totally misrepresenting it, so don't kid yourself by thinking you have the full story. Admit that you are just accepting Jim's authoritative tone because you are aligned with his ideology. Have some courage. Listen to a summary of the real science he doesn't want you to see. Part 1: th-cam.com/video/ghJGnMwRHCs/w-d-xo.html Part 2: th-cam.com/video/Jf72o6HmVNk/w-d-xo.html
"Disgusting and pathetic behavior" isn't exactly conducive language that invites discussion if you want people to listen to you, bud. For someone who has made videos on logical fallacies, you sure like to use them. Your use of emotionally triggered language is already showing you're not exactly approaching this objectively.
@@winterlogical If you would care to watch the videos you see how wrong Tour is, the only question this time is will he once again apologise? He certainly should for the way he quote mined and took sentences completely out of context, shameful.
TH-cam video is not a Published paper.. So how about you defend it in here? As I'm not religious.. But I can spot people that use Science. As cover to practice being Bigots. Something I caught onto several years ago... So lets start with what he Misrepresented. It better contain published papers that I can reference.. And yes I have subscriptions to Scientific Journals. So any horse shit like making shit up. I will come bet your ass silly with my Science Stick. You even try and sneak in Processed Chemicals. That do not exist in Nature. Using controlled environments. Under the supervision of someone with a Mind. I will come bet your ass silly with that Science Stick Again. As that very thing. You are tying to disprove. Contradicts the narrative of Materialist want to portray..There is no God, Outside Agency, Creator. Outside the Universe. Something not one sane person would tell others. With any certainty. As it would require both parties with a common frame of reference to even discuss. That means your ass has to die. Then come back....And you can Quote Spock on that one.. As you people have got a pass for far to long. Running around making non Scientific Statements. Using Appeal to Authority. As shit for brains published some book. Then you latch onto that like Moses and the Ten Commandments. Come down from the hill. You should be ashamed of yourselves. But you're not. As your agendas is far worse then Religious people. As your ass will Lie, Steal, Cheat and use Deception. To pull one over on the average person. Well let me tell you something. There are many more where I come from. That are feed up with you people. Generation Z is pissed off. You been robbing people of their time, labor and effort. Just as Thomas Sowell Predicted... The Zip Code Intelligentsia in Academia is run by Imbeciles and Cretins.. I will wait. While you produce them Published papers. That I can read... Not some TH-cam Video of horse shit indoctrination. Where someone dribbles down their lips. Pretending their Scientist..
Winter, there is no "emotionally triggered language" here. I am making factual statements about errors and lies committed by James. You're just whining about me being "triggered" because that's what stupid people do when they can't cope with facts, and you're too much of a coward to actually watch my response and find out how much of a fraud James is. Maybe bring that up with your therapist, eh kiddo?
On behalf of all spiritual seekers worldwide your services to humanity are practically incalculable, but such are the workings of Divinity, who you represent. Thank you.
Details people, the details are important! Any time someone skips over details like it’s trivial with a subject like this, you always want to be skeptical... even if you don’t understand it (perhaps all the more reason).
Le agradezco por dedicar de su tiempo para dar estas explicaciones que nos sacan de la ignorancia y me siento bendecido de ver el valor con que defiende la verdad sé que va contra la corriente, muchos lo vemos de lejos pero créame que nos unimos en un mismo pensamiento. Adelante Doctor
There are a lot of "Scientists" on YT and even documentaries on TV that make all sorts of claims. But when we get something like this video series, where we have an honest and highly trained and knowledgeable scientist critically analyzing claims of "scientists", it makes me even more suspicious and distrusting of these so-called scientists who are telling us what's what. Thank you Dr. Tours for taking the time to go through this and expose the inaccuracies and hyperbole of these so-called "scientists".
You know what's really great about these videos from BOSS TOUR is even though I (and probably most of us) don't understand the really technical parts, or the processes, or the terminology... James does such a good job explaining EVERYTHING that you understand how unbelievably difficult (dare I say impossible) it would be for these things to happen BY CHANCE!!!! IT CAN HARDLY BE DONE AT ALL!!! Let alone naturally and by chance. I'm sorry... It takes way more faith then I can muster to believe anything other then a caring, loving God created us for His own purpose... Imagine.. if all the world had as much faith in God as "Professor" Dave and friends have in luck.
That's what science is about. Checking the work and poking holes into someone hypothesis. Your work is crucial for scientific accuracy, and gods has nothing to do with it. Progress is always seen in the rear mirrors. Thank you for your time and expertise.
Thank you so very much for this video series! It's so good and insightful that I wouldn't be surprised if even Dave Farina would subscribe to this channel. I was raised as a Christian from infancy and believed in a Creator until I started doubting in my late teens/early 20's and became agnostic. I didn't want to believe in something just because that's the way I was brought up, so I investigated other religions and the possibility of evolution. If I had access to this great information back then I likely wouldn't have gone through that short phase in my life. Thanks again!
Dr. Tour, I watched the show on the science channel last night about the Perseverance Mars robot. The hype is worse than you state. The robot is looking for clues about possible life on Mars and in the middle of the show they talk about how life originated on Earth. To paraphrase - deep under the ocean molecules self assembled to form the first unicellular organisms, which somehow evolved to photosynthetic cells, produced oxygen, which in turn gave rise to the rich array of animals we have today, starting around 580 million years ago. Wow. You were not exaggerating to call in hype.
As I understand it ee is enantiomeric excess. Typically you expect 50:50 mixtures which is ee 0. An ee of 100% would a 100:0 mixture which is homochiral. 22% would be a 61:39 mixture. And then if you have a yield of less than 1% ... I am starting to see why Dr Tour likes to shout NOT EVEN CLOSE.
I got into a comment exchange with Dave on Dr. Tour's message. He basically just make accusation against my motivations and character. Later he deleted my original comments and his harsh responses. When you challenge some one's deeply held worldview they get angry in most cases.
_"When you challenge some one's deeply held worldview they get angry in most cases."_ It's called _cognitive bias_ and _cognitive dissonance._ i.e. _"one's deeply held worldview"_ = cognitive bias, _"When you challenge... they get angry"_ i.e. _"cognitive dissonance"._ = They go into fight or flight response and have physiological reactions.
Yes, “Professor Drop Out” Dave is reduced to name calling when actual scientists show up. My guess is he never read that crappy chem comm paper and just extrapolated from reading the abstract.
Well when they're a phony they get mad... when they are legit they hit you with the real, as Dr. Tour has done here and many other creation scientist are doing across many disciplines.
@@donaldjacobson4184 Indeed very few and those under microscope. Dealing with science these days- you said it well, but it keeps you sharp and within the habit of questioning everything established as axioms.
_"war on the truth is carried all over"_ Oh, how right you are. There is a war against the truth, but it isn't just contained within the scientific community.
Nihilism has taken root. The Love corps is the head of prisons, the Peace Corps are the Military and the double-speak is the Media. The basis of evolutionists that there is only relativism / postmodernism, there is no truth. Same as Pontius Pilate ask Jesus, *"What is truth"?* - while the ultimate truth was staring Pilate in the face.
I'm a HS chemistry teacher so I'm used to talking to lay people. So let's talk separation. One of the 1st labs I do with my students is I give them a mixture of salt and sand and tell them to separate the mixture into two things; pure sand and pure salt. The idea in chemistry is any two substances can be separated, if they somehow behave differently. Sand is different than salt so this process is easy. Its easier to separate dimes and quarters than it is to separate nickels and quarters. Likewise, salt and sugar is more difficult to separate than salt and sand. IT IS EXTREAMLY DIFFICULT TO SEPARATE A COMPOUND INTO ITS LEFT AND RIGHT STEREOISOMERS. If the compound is complex like a protein, separation is impossible.
Haha you should tell this to all the laypeople that are in this thread saying that people like you and Dr have no clue what you are talking about. God bless you.
Hi Dr Tour, may I offer some constructive criticisms? Firstly, the information you provided above was informative and convincing, and I appreciated the indepth study of the journal paper because it brought up the vital issues of yield and efficiency, and how these details are not given proper attention in abiogenesis. However, I felt that the video did not connect the concept of homochirality (which was well explained) with its relevance and application in biology and abiogenesis. Specifically which isomers, and which homochiral molecules are significant in abiogenesis, and why? What is their function in the cell? What are the difficulties and procedures in producing specifically these homochiral molecules? The video was aimed more as a direct response to Dave's citation of that journal paper, and so did not educate the viewer sufficiently on the topic as a whole. Perhaps, this video could have been longer, and could have gone into the relevance and application in abiogenesis (and biology). Or, could you follow this video up with another? Nevertheless, thank you for addressing this topic in the manner that you have chosen. For example, here is a useful quote from Wikipedia that shows the relevance of homochirality and a connection between enantiomers (mirror image, chiral isomers) and biology: "Enantiomers behave identically in chemical reactions, except when reacted with chiral compounds or in the presence of chiral catalysts, such as most enzymes. For this latter reason, the two enantiomers of most chiral compounds usually have markedly different effects and roles in living organisms. In biochemistry and food science, the two enantiomers of a chiral molecule - such as glucose - are usually identified, and treated as very different substances." Is this why the next video is about sugars?
He covers most of your questions asked. Like why is it important for homochiral forms of the molecules and how they are used in specific cell structures.
Someone needs to arrange an intervention for “Professor” Dave, or call LAPD for a wellness check. He’s in a pretty bad state right now. He’s been reduced to calling everyone names at this point in the reply section of his site. I’m serious. If this was a sanctioned bout with the boxing commission, Dave’s manager would have thrown the towel and called the fight. He’s in danger of hurting himself.
Someone needs to force Dave Farina into a live stream debate with Dr. Tour or better still one in front of a live audience in an auditorium. If you take away FAKE "Professor" Dave's ability to Google answers on the internet I think the debate will be pretty one-sided. Let's face it. It will be a pretty one-sided debate irrespective of the venue or medium used to facilitate this. Dave's main claim to fame after all is humiliating Flat Earthers. Hardly challenging academically speaking.
He actually commented on the first video and indicated that James Tour was confused and he was hoping to educate him. Since then he's been strangely quiet. :) He was derogatory towards Christianity in his video, then got a whole lot of Christians objecting, then called them all stupid and followers of James Tour. With regards to boxing, me and my wife get James Tour and David Tua muddled up. :)
@@jeremybeavon4476 _"He actually commented on the first video and indicated that James Tour was confused and he was hoping to educate him. Since then he's been strangely quiet."_ From memory Dave Farina did NOT comment to James Tour directly. Only to other people commenting on this forum. Most of the time he was trying to increase traffic to his channel and ad revenue by urging people to watch his videos. Highly unethical behaviour IMO. I have posted a direct invitation to Dave on his *Elucidating the Agenda of James Tour: A Defense of Abiogenesis* video which he has already deleted.
The homochirality problem is really a subset of the "bad things that can bind" to monomers. For RNA or proteins to work, each part needs the appropriate connector, and wrong chirality wrecks everything. Thus, given polymers must be homochiral, a random set of amino acids has a (1/2)^n chance of being homochiral, which is small. However, it's not obvious there are often many other potential mishaps, including binding to the "different compounds," which Tour references around 22:27. It's not obvious how relevant this impurity point is; how this stuff is basically just like a right-handed amino acid (ie, dead). For example, an amino acid in a mixture of sugars could link to sugar instead of another amino acid, wrecking the protein; a phosphate in a proto-RNA could bind to another phosphate instead of sugar, destroying that potential RNA. Further, not only is there a mix of any particular enantiomers, but also many different types of sugars, amino acids, and nucleobases (each of which has enantiomers). Generally, these are produced together. For example, ribose is one of many sugars produced in any sugar-producing process; there are just as many non-biologic amino acids generated along with our base set of biological 20 amino acids. Thus the purity of the potential binding agents is heavily managed in origin-of-life studies to avoid this via step-by-step purification, reagents, etc. One could add the fact that bindings can occur at various points that would destroy an RNA, in that there are 5 binding sites on ribose for the nitrogen base. The bottom line is that given a soup of amino acids the odds of them forming a potential protein n units long is not just (1/2)^n, but more like (1/6)^n given the number of non-biological amino acids swimming around. For a proto-RNA, the problem is much worse given the probability of binding to the wrong thing (sugar vs. phosphate), the different sugars that would be present, the wrong binding site on the sugar molecule, and 8 enantiomers of a nucleobase instead of 2, the odds are not (1/2)^n but (1/1000)^n. Given this starting improbability, one can then address whether such a polypeptide would have a stable protein structure that might actually link or do something in concert with another protein, or that a nucleotide polymer would have a meaningful code. The odds quickly rise to the point where it is more probable the reader has a Boltzmann brain, a random collection of molecules that create a brain that perceives itself to think it is living as we do.
How long have you been a Christian? Your blog said you became one recently but I didn't see a date on when it was posted. You seem to understand a bit more about this stuff then I do. I figured you must be a professor somewhere so I looked you up. How does someone go from being a financial genius to microbiology? Are you in MSP?
I had previously not been aware in a qualitazive sensr of how much more chemical instable/reactive RNA is compared to DNA (that csn make it a usefull tool but a bad long term information career). But in the RNA world hypothesis this is instsbility brcomes cumulative problem when you add it to the idea of a proto cell or no cell. In both cases there is no homoeostasis. So heridity shall not only start with a molecule that is much more fragil (RNA) than what life actually uses today but that much more fragil thing is as well suposed to survive without the protection of the cell that the more stable DNA still needs to survive.
Kind of related to this, I have done over the years a video series addressing what Atheists call contradictions in the bible. Whilst no where near as technical as this, I discovered basically what you discovered, that in almost 100% of the cases, they are either severely overhyping the issue or not even reading the material they are critiquing. I was actually taken back by this to some degree because I actually expected to find some kind of substance to their objections, but it was so easy that for a while I actually thought I was badly missing something. Also, being an Engineer, I found the exact same thing with regards to the severely overhyped notion of evolutionary algorithms that are supposed to assist with design concepts etc... but which only work precisely because they aren't evolutionary at all but are rather highly tuned, highly refined, directed and so forth. Thank you for parsing this stuff out Dr Tour, no one is really talking about chemistry in this way.
Love all this technical stuff - Have to stop the video and go over it again. Kind of get it (I think): homochirality, non-congruant, sterogenic center, racemic, enantiomer, etc.
Maybe I missed it, but I recommend that you begin the video with the reason why homochirality is important topic wrt abiogenesis (i.e. biologically relevant molecules and processes are very specific to/limited by chirality). As a synthetic chemist, I'm loving these videos!
He's answering the Professor Dave's video in which he arrogantly dismissed the difficulty of separating chirality. So Dr. Tour explains here that no, it's _really hard._
As organic chemist I always wondered how chirality originated. In lab you always use some reagent/crystal that is already chiraly pure. But chirality had to start somehow. I would like hear more about some teories about that.
I defended Dr. Tour based on science. Professor Dave replied that Dr. Tour is a liar because of his religion. He never tried to address the science. That told me all I needed to know about the mental acuity of Professor Dave.
Its very unscientific to characterize and label people with negative stereotypes that don’t match, have evidence, or tests. Can hypocrites of that level and character be trusted to produce truthful findings and educate people?
@@boltrooktwo exactly. These individuals are finally being exposed as the false teachers that they are. I don't think that anyone has to believe one way or the other to agree that Dr Tour has been offering a very concise and well evidenced critique of the OoL research over the last 65+ years. He is just taking it all to the woodshed because of their extrapolations and extraordinary claims that appear to not be possible whatsoever in a "natural" prebiotic setting. The saddest thing is that these same researchers make discoveries in their respective fields and fail to realize that these discoveries create an exponential number of a questions regarding these studies and the possibilities involved. All I can do is pray that God will remove the scales from their eyes and they will one day see the truth as it is clearly indicated.
E X T R A O R D I N A R Y WORK... Plato’s good friend, but truth’s and God’s best... God protect you and those who helped you and your family and friends...
Even nobel prize winning scientists have drunk of the darwinism/marxism Kool Aid and engage in evolutionary fairy tale story telling. But the great Dr Tour is unafraid to call them out (Episode 3 - 38:18). Love it!!!
Professor Dave's inaccuracies so far: (The best of...) 1. Use of the word Biochemistry. Whilst biochemists do study OoL and biochemicals did exist before life, there was no biochemistry occuring in prebiotic reactions, just plain dead chemistry. Hence the field - prebiotic chemistry and the meaning of the word abiogenesis (origin without biology/non-biological origin). It's a contradiction of terms. It was strictly chemistry. (Anyone who disagrees with this, show me the biochemistry occuring before life began.) 2. Entropy/Thermodynamics argument is an ignorant fallacy?? - a great decrease in entropy WITH a great increase in energy, needed for life, has never ever been observed in the universe without HELP (Dr Brian Miller PhD - expert in thermodynamics), it is a physical impossibility if unaided. Therefore, the examples of ice and soap, order arising (entropy decreasing) from a decrease in energy (driven by nature's preference for a lower energy equilibrium state) as a rebuttal for the argument based upon the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a straw man, it is missing half of the argument. (Anyone who dismisses Dr Miller because he believes in God, prove he is scientifically wrong...) 3. Hype is from the media, NOT the scientists?? - Completely false, Tour's whole video addresses this. Hype can be from the scientists themselves and in many cases the media do consult with them prior to publishing their work, hence they are culpable in this too. Dave has never published a peer reviewed paper so he would not know the intricate details of how this works. (See episode 3 for references) 4. Dave's homochirality assessment is riddled with errors - Tour analysed he actual paper and the SLIGHT excess of asparagine (said in the video) was actually greater than 99% asparagine, an important detail. The enantiomeric excess wasn't pure, for Phe it had a max of 22% of the remaining 1%, a terrible efficiency. The data for other amino acids reveals a broad spread of ee % for both D and L forms, leading the authors to conclude this is just as likely to produce a racemic aftermath as a result, not a homochiral one (from the conclusion of the actual paper). 5. Carbohydrates - Dave states in his video that polysaccharides are repeating units of the SAME monomer, this is utterly false! Many different monomers can make up polysaccharides. Also, use of the word TRICKY in their synthesis is a gross understatement worth mentioning, which Tour goes on to explain in some detail. 6. Any biomolecule is easy to synthesize?? A grossly ridiculous statement. They are hard to synthesize, especially in homochiral form even using ACTIVATE D building blocks taken from nature, side chain protection and removal.. which is common procedure. 7. Primordial soup belief and Honest Talking points - Dave states "to call [seeing a primordial soup of molecules, some lightening and then all of a sudden a cell is there, then maybe a lizard crawling onto land or something like that] a complete view of abiogenesis and evolution would be absurd, but absolutely no one proposes this." Dave states Tour is making a dishonest talking point here, however, Tour shows a video where Lee Cronin (OoL expert) said that Justin Brierley's GCSE [high school] education on his very thing - i.e. "A few lightening strikes and then 'poof!' a cell forms" - was 'not too bad at all". Dr Tour also showed a survey of 697 people, 80% of whom have college degrees, and of this group, ~73% believed scientists researching OoL have created simple life forms via mixing prebiotic chemicals. Therefore 1) it is indeed an honest talking point and 2) Dave's statement "absolutely no one proposes this" has evidence that highly suggests otherwise. (Thanks Bart) 8. Polymer regeneration fallacy. Dave proposed a constant equilibrium reaction to continuously regenerate proteins and RNA from their respective monomers and their even smaller building blocks to overcome Tour's point of molecular degradation over time. This has many catastrophic problems, here's just 3: 1) The equilibrium value would have to be 1 for the required formation/degredation balance. Most reactions do not work like this, it's a thermodynamic fallacy to presume so. The product with the lower energy state is favoured, tipping it's equilibrium one way or the other, not a nice perpetual regeneration. 2) Even ignoring this, many other reactions will occur, not just the desired polymerization. Without side chain protection, racemic, branched JUNK is inevitable. 3) Even ignoring 1 and 2, The polymer needs to be of meaningful sequence to be useful, otherwise it's JUNK! Regeneration of the SAME meaningful sequence is astronomically low - this is before self-replication, therefore anything of potential use would just degrade, likely never to be reproduced. 9. Proteins (could have, may, perhaps) possibly... formed in the ocean. Condensation reactions extremely ineffective in water, the equilibrium drives the reaction backwards, back to amino acids, any proteins break down or are blocked from forming due to the zwitterionic nature of amino acids. Homochirality is bereft of an explanation. 10. His misleading, illinformed slide showing ribonucleotides polymerizing over hot clay is TORN TO SHREDS by Dr Tour. It all looks so easy according to Dave. However.... 1) No prebiotic route to ribose for the starting materials. 2) The clay and the procedure is a prebiotic joke, neither would occur. (Centrifuge 3500rpm??) 3) HOT clay considering the instability of RNA above minus 80??? 4) Catastrophic polymerization problems - wrong linkages causing termination 5) Getting the thing off the clay is even unprebiotic. 11. Cell membranes (Dave "grabbing things out of the air and proclaiming it from the rooftops") Dave's postulated lipid monolayer for protocells is unfounded and is not demonstrated as viable ANYWHERE in the scientific literature and has never been shown to exist. The postulated lipid bilayers devoid of protein gateways or proton gradients would just act as a TOMB for anything inside that may have miraculously formed. Also, the complex non-symmetric bilayers necessary for life do not form spontaneously. 12. Lipids - The spontaneous origin of fatty acids from hydrothermal vents is highly disputed, more likely deriving from oil products of biological origin. Even if we give you the fatty acids.. Salad dressing won't suffice Dave! Lipids made from simple fatty acids are unable to maintain proton gradients essential for life - phospholipids must've been there from the beginning. See episode 10 for their implausible origin. 13. Homochirality1- Given the terrible ee% excess in Dave's example, to stand any chance of leading to homochirality, it would need an exemplary prebiotically relevant autocatalytic reaction inducing enantiomeric amplification. One has never ever been discovered! The only known reaction to do this is the Soai reaction, however, this is - 1) Prebiotically irrelevant 2) Nowhere near efficient enough 3) Nowhere near persistent enough. (Donna Blackmond) How did proteins become homochiral when there's no prebiotically relevant route ever shown to make the amino acids in homochiral form, or to separate the enantiomers, or to polymerize them? 14. Homochirality2 - Dave claims homochirality could've arrived after life began... Baseless. Implausible. Unscientific. There is no evidence for claimed racemic mixtures (no homochirality) being usable in cells. They have never been shown to function based on the reaction specificities, yields and heat management that would be needed for cellular systems (see CISS in episode 11). Dave suggested this for lipids but VAST numbers of electron transfers take place in lipid bilayer membranes, so it's baseless to dismiss the need for lipid homochirality (see CISS). 15. Dave gets his abiogenesis information from Wikipedia (at best) but more than likely from the Sunday tabloids or his local gazette. When (if) referencing peer reviewed papers, his source material rarely ventures past the abstract of any given paper. If not study the entire paper, at least read it's conclusions which usually provide a more balanced assessment than the abstract. Come on Dave, do your homework!
I'm also a layperson who is a science and philosophy enthusiast. I have been following closely all the debates between theistic and atheistic scientists for a while now and I must say that for me, the more I learn about scientific discoveries the more I see the handiwork of God, and of course, I'm aware that I come to this topic with confirmation bias. It seems to me that Paul was right when he remarked that our problem is not the lack of evidence of God's existence but rather the suppression of that evidence. And I think this is demonstrated by how the majority of atheistic scientists do their science. I think Dave Farina’s gross misrepresentation of science was intentional and I think this easily shows how deeply committed he is to naturalism. I'm not surprised though because this is what you get from the majority of atheistic scientists.
Really?? Then try harder as there's no such thing as a "god", either that or you show me empirical evidence that your particular god exists. Jesus was a fictional person as is/was your god. Look back at history, every civilisation has had a pantheon of various gods so yours is no different, they come and go with time, none of them are real.
@@ramptonarsecandle The irony of this is that you are asking me for empirical evidence of God's existence whereas you have not provided any empirical evidence for denying God's existence. So may I ask you where is your empirical evidence for denying God's existence? Both you and I cannot prove/disprove God’s existence because God is not an object of an empirical study that can be measured with earthly/scientific means. This then leaves us with the option of philosophy - making arguments of reason based upon the nature of things and the dynamics of causality. Having said that, I do believe that we have good reasons to believe that God does exist. One of them is the fact that our planet, with the confluence of circumstances that gave rise to us, is statistically impossible, even given all the stars and galaxies in the Universe. The emergence of intelligent life is so outlandishly unexpected, given all the factors that needed to occur in just the right particular order, that our Universe must have been designed specifically to give rise to us. It seems to me that the odds of us coming to be would be so infinitesimally small that it’s unreasonable to believe it could have happened by chance. This one of the compelling arguments for me. As far as Jesus of Nazareth, it seems like you are taking the view of mythicism. If that's the case then I think you will have a hard time substantiating your claim because we have overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ was a real historical person. Besides the New Testament document, Jesus’s life is also recorded in the Jewish Talmud. Furthermore, ancient historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, and Philo wrote about Jesus’s life. Have you ever heard of the name Bart Ehrman? Have you ever read his books? If not, I would recommend that you get his books or watch the debate he had with the mythicist Robert Price. The debate was titled “Did Jesus exist?”.
@@zolisanomandla1086 Again really ??? I can't believe you've asked me that! I cannot prove a negative, your god is a negative ergo I cannot show evidence that it does not exist. The god of the gaps is not-falsifiable "You can't prove he doesn't exist or that he didn’t do X" (onus probandi) . Are you really that stupid I wonder? No you need to show positive evidence that your particular god exists otherwise you have noting but your faith. Jesus?? Are you for real? All of the historians you cite are born way after Jesus died, Tacitus for example was born in AD67 and didn't write anything about your jesus until 116AD, Josephus's account was known to be falsified as was the Jewish Talmud so you don't get away with that! No you show me some contemporary evidence and I will take you seriously. I have read all of Ehrman and I have also read Richard Carrier who concludes Jesus is just a myth, have you read him or David Fitzgerald? He also concludes your Jesus is just a myth, his book is called "Nailed" Show me these reasons your god exists or you are just another know nothing wanabe christian f*** wit Your call big man
@RetroMan Umm you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you? Anyone who doesn't know the difference between "you're" and "your" has, as you like to say the writing spelling and grammar of a 5 year old. You also clearly have no idea of what "burden of proof" actually means. The theist is the one defining a god that exists, it is not the atheist defining a god and then saying it doesn’t exist. "You can't prove he doesn't exist or that he didn’t do X" (onus probandi) If I said I could fly would you believe me or would you ask for evidence? Do you see now, it's you that is saying your god exists not me therefore it's you that has to show evidence, I cannot prove a negative. If you don't understand that then there's very little point in discussing this further.
I usually play solitaire or do something else while I watch videos. But man! I had to pay strict attention and rewind several times to follow this one. Good!
If it's easy like Dave says where are his examples of natural processes separating molecules in nature? Even in you grant him that it's easy he still misses the point and that is scientists are doing it in a clean lad with intelligent input to get what they're after. He can't see the forest through the trees..
Dr Tour - hats off - you are risking as much in your field as Jordan Peterson in his. Would be great to have you, Jordan and Meyer together on the show. My 2 cents, what I feel from your presentation is that modern Darwinian science has created a god of gaps religion, hence they dont see beyond the concept of evolution and everything else has to fit in - just like Darwin. Watched your discussion with Dave- well if thats not religious man believing in concepts over true explanation than I dont know what. Jordan Peterson stated (I paraphrase): "scientist has to be honest with interpretation of his/her work because they can make up meaning of the statistics, results, twist the interpretation the way they want... and then in fear of loosing they reputation they continue with their lies" I think this fits Darwin's concept, and certainly origin of life scientists. I am a composer by my passion and studies, origin of life science is like throwing bricks on the piano a call it JS Bach because it hit note C. Love your work, gotta notice you through Stephen Meyer. Will continue watching your Bible videos too. God Bless in Jesus name, shalom
Seriously? You've learnt precisely nothing as they are full of mistruths and out and out lies. Do some research, believe that someone who mentions "god" or "Jesus" isn't always telling the truth, as here
@@ramptonarsecandle Really? Can you show me this so I can understand what you mean? Do you have any evidence to back up your claims? I would like to see it.
Why is it important to separate enantiomers? If they have the same BP, MP and solubility, etc. why worry about separating? What does homochirality have to do with OoL? Maybe it's addressed in the next video and I'm jumping ahead.
Proteins, sugars, and lipids (fats) are homochiral. If we (possibly intelligent beings) work very hard to separate the enantiomersor prepare only 1, how would an unintelligent nature make only one enantiomer
Where, how does chirality take place or occur in protein assembling? Where are the amino acids formed themselves and how is the sequencing of the 20 amino acids accomplished?
I believe the sequencing is controlled by the DNA. And it's the sequencing that is so amazing. Assume for example you're talking about a protein with 150 sequenced amino acids. Now the functionality of the protein is directly a function of the type and sequencing of these amino acids. The odds of getting those amino acids sequenced by chance if 1 / 20^150. That's a friggin big number.
I value this series highly, and have developed deep respect for James Tour. But I feel one Biblical quote should be applied in context of positioning this whole presentation as a response to Dave Farina: Do not cast peals before swine. Trolls never take ownership of their distortions.
Everybody please pray for this great man. At the moment he is not on the radar of the insane political leftist atheist ideology and true science deniers . But in just these few series of lectures, has : 1. demonstrated the wildly inaccurate claims by respected scientist, 2. the inefficiency of the peer review system that allows sloppy research to be presented as evidence bolstering the origin of life sciences 3. The complicity of the media to amplify unscientific claims 4. The reluctance of the academic community to properly critique and call out antiscientific claims within its own community If his series of lectures gets more views he will become a target just like anyone that points to truth in these horrifically concerning days .
Unfortunately Dr. Tour is already a target of the evolutionary crowd. Since they are no match for his knowledge they attack him on religious grounds. Shows how desperate and out of touch with reality they are.
Abiogenesis Hypothesis postulates that undirected random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment.
Toure writes there are 2^n isomers where n is the number of stereogenic centers. Isn't the isomer label a larger class than that, in that 2^n refers only to the stereoisomers? Or does stereoisomer refer to pairs within an isomer, which can be either diastereomers or enantiomers?
Yes, it would be stereoisomers. He mentioned that he might make little mistakes like this throughout the video. Good catch. I teach this stuff every fall. Aside from that minor mistake, he gave a decent overview
This is a quote from an article by Education Week dated March 06, 2019 on the credentials of Dave Farina: "Farina, who taught in high school and undergraduate classrooms for 10 years before turning into a TH-camr, received a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from Minnesota’s Carleton College and a master’s in chemistry and science education at California State University. His career included a full-time position teaching chemistry, biology, and physics at a private school in Hollywood, and substitute teaching in the San Francisco Bay Area, before transitioning to lecturing at a trade university." However, this is not accurate. This is another example of media hype. Dave actually never finished the Master's program, though he made two attempts. According to Dave, on his first attempt, he dropped out to play music in a band, and on his second attempt, he lost his job teaching undergraduate chemistry at SCUHS, and could not continue his Master's. Therefore, his highest academic credentials are a Bachelor degree in chemistry from Carleton college, and he taught an undergraduate course for about 4 semesters (approximately 2 years) at a private college called the Southern California University of Health Sciences, which offers two year degrees. One should note, however, that Dave is not qualified to teach undergraduate level chemistry without a Master's degree.
@@settledown444 In short, prior to TH-cam, Dave may have had 10 years of teaching experience at the level of high school and a trade university. Facts are important, even if hype is more popular.
@@settledown444 not even close Tim. Tour is pointing out that biologists are simply not chemists. OOL is chemistry not biology. Tour’s arguments are comparable in quality to the arguments that biologists first faced and steadfastly ignored from the physicists, chemists, mathematicians and information scientists who first pointed out the difficulties of Darwin’s theory of evolution at the Wistar Symposium in the 1960’s. Those arguments underlying many of the arguments that plague evolution to this day. Systems Biology has now eclipsed Darwin. OOL cannot solve the information problem. Homochirality and nucleotide sequences are a form of information and are critical to living systems.stay tuned for carbohydrates next week.
@@settledown444 You're still butt-hurt? I put it in layman terms so you'd get the point. You're off your rocker if you believe what comes out of your head as a post on YouBoobTube. To elucidate, you don't know squat.
@@settledown444 If anyone is raving it is you. Just calm down. James Tour did not accuse anyone of lying, but of contributing to hype in the abiogenesis field, which does confuse and mislead people. He convincingly demonstrated that their conclusions were hype. Scientists should be more cautious about their conclusions and stick to the facts demonstrated by their experiments, rather than express their imagination of possible events and scenarios.
@@Josdamale Why did he apologise then? Here's an excerpt from his letter; "Dear Peter, thank you for writing to me. That was a strong word (“lying”) which I regret saying. I have already apologized to Jack Szostak by phone, and he very graciously accepted the apology. If given a chance, I would likewise apologize to any of those cited in that talk to whom I said such a thing. My behavior was inappropriate." So you need to retract your statement that Tour did not accuse anyone of lying because here is evidence he very much did. Seems you need to apologise now, wonder if you will??? It's not a question of whether creationists lie it's a question of when...................
@@ramptonarsecandle don’t make baseless claims. Be specific. What was the lie you mentioned and provide at least a link to it. I am sure Dr. Tour could make a mistake when saying things. That is different from lying. I’ll wait.
@@markoconnell804 There are numerous examples of Tour lying and of Tour calling other people liars. He has had to publicly apologise to many people before and retract his accusations. Here's an excerpt from a letter he wrote; Dear Peter, thank you for writing to me. That was a strong word (“lying”) which I regret saying. I have already apologized to Jack Szostak by phone, and he very graciously accepted the apology. If given a chance, I would likewise apologize to any of those cited in that talk to whom I said such a thing. My behavior was inappropriate. Like many things that I do and say in life, there are elements upon which I have regrets and wish that I had done differently. My life is filled with those occasions. In fact, I can literally claim almost daily I do something or say something which I wish I had not. Those closest to me get the brunt of it, but thankfully they have also been gracious in forgiving me. And for that I am thankful. You can research more but I doubt you want your illusion shattered, it won't alter the fact it's all out there.
@@ramptonarsecandle This is horse crap. He was talking about OOL researchers and their misleading statements. It's obvious he felt bad about using the word "lying" when he should have said they were grossly in error. He never backed off the claim they were misleading. And to call Tour a "liar" because he criticized the particular OOL makes you a liar.
I watch the competing video presentations back and forth between Tour and Dave, and I must say that some segments such as these I understand next to nothing. This underpins the reality that people like myself really have to go on trust in the person presenting information. We are at their mercy, as we are furthermore predisposed to the biases we bring in trying to discern just who is speaking the truth. This is why it is essential that, in the current instance, we understand the rhetorical significance where Professor Dave puts his finger on the scale at the opening of his video (and elsewhere), where he says, in effect, that you cannot trust Tour on this subject because of his Christian fundamentalist "headspace," as he calls it. (He is sharp in his use of imagery to persuade. The clip showing Tour in the cushy, throne-like chair and speaking with religious zeal sure has its impact! Yet, it is so far removed in its impression from the plain suited, hard working, and plain speaking scientist doing his work. And it has nothing to do with argument from science.) Professor Dave constantly derides Tour a "charlatan" and a "liar" in the comment section of his video. Yet, this rhetorical tactic on his part is at the heart of trying to convince by deceptive means. He wants to discredit Tour by pointing to his religious beliefs, and then telling the viewers that they therefore cannot trust him on this subject. From that point, it manipulates the response of those of us who are at the mercy of having to put our confidence where we are not qualified to discern the facts. This is a blatantly deceptive ploy, and only diminishes whatever trust I might have been willing to concede to Prof. Dave. The irony is that Tour's faith, according to my own bias, compels his conscience toward impartiality in seeking truth, while P. Dave only sees the man indoctrinated to tow the anti-scientific line. A significant distinction between them in this regard is that Tour never uses his religion to make his scientific observations, while Prof. Dave uses Tour's religion (and so his own apparent atheism) to persuade in his own presentation of the subject here.
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." (*The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80.) The probability of a functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by undirected random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that undirected random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what many of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a purely arbitrary, subjective, materialistic ideology. Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic subjective ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millenia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by discoveries in Quantum Physics.
I got from this video that "Prof" Dave grossly overstated the results of a journal paper, however, I did not get the significance of Homochirality in either biochemistry or abiogenesis. I would have liked to have seen the connection of Homochirality with the building blocks of cells. What is it that abiogenesis has to achieve and why?
@@settledown444 nothing could be further from the truth. “Professor” Dave explained away the problem of chirality in a misleading way. Dave is in tears on his own website yelling at everyone and calling them names. He’s in a meltdown. If he wants to go on Dr Tours show and debate he’s welcome to do that as Dr Tour has made clear. Dave’s just in over his head that’s all.
Isomers are two molecules that have the same atomic composition, but are not identical.. Many organic compounds form constitutional isomers which are also called structural isomers. ( The basis is purposeful and unguided under enclosed and favorable entropic conditions within a biosphere and environment that favors the organism to grow in).They have the *same empirical formula, but the atoms are connected in a different way* .For example, C 2 H 6 O C_2H_6O C 2 H 6 O is the empirical formula for both ethanol and dimethyl ether. They operate differently. Vastly. This means that diethyl ether cannot form hydrogen bonds with the water molecules, this means the dimethyl ether is immiscible with water. In ethanol the oxygen atom is bonded to a hydrogen which gives it a dipole, this allows the ethanol molecule to form hydrogen bonds with the water molecules and therefore it is miscible with water. such complexity and variations with simple reconfiguration. Another example - The chiral self-sorting process during the self-assembly of homochiral Pd6L8 capsules from cyclotriveratrylene (CTV)-based chiral tritopic ligands (L) and PdPy* 4ðOTfÞ2 (Py*: 3-chloropyridine) was investigated by an NMR-based approach (QASAP: quantitative analysis of the self-assembly process). From the beginning to the formation of the Pd6L8Py* 2 immature capsules (ICs), enantiomeric ligands are distributed in the intermediates in a non-self-sorting manner, which leads to the isomers of heterochiral ICs over 99% yield. *The mismatch of the chirality in the heterochiral ICs prevents intramolecular ligand exchanges* in ICs to form the heterochiral capsules. (Sadly, this doesn't bode well for evolutionistic) The correction of the chirality in the heterochiral ICs (chiral self-sorting) *takes place very slowly* to finally lead to the homochiral capsules. (Stable conditions would have to be established with nothing interfering such as weather change, temperature changes (night / freezing temperatures - day blistering heat etc). The reason why the chiral self-sorting took place in the late stage of the self-assembly (after the formation of the heterochiral ICs) *would be due to the relatively high flexibility* of the CTV-based ligand. Where did such flexibility in life come from. Disorderly chaos doesn't permit flexibility and cooperation. In a lab the slightest environment flux changes a magnitude of variables.
@@abashedsanctimony154 From the video I understand the concept of Homochirality and the difficulty in producing such isomers, with regard to efficiency and yield (which are excellent points), but the importance of Homochirality is not discussed in relation to abiogenesis and biology. That may require a different video.
@@ifollowtheantichristandthe9218 _"The origin of life doesnt require energy to be creater or destroyed."_ That's pretty vague and generalised. Are you saying that abiogenesis doesn't require energy for the creation of life from amino acids, proteins and then cells? Even OoL proponents all claim that lightning (i.e. energy) was required as part of this process at some point. Or are you referring to the Big Bang and the creation of the universe? What is your frame of reference?
@@ifollowtheantichristandthe9218 _"The origin of life doesnt require energy"_ Just a near impossible probability of 1 in 10^164 for a simple protein to form by chance which is 10 times longer than the universe has already existed in seconds!"_
Let the complete, utter, total, embarrassing, thrashing of professor Dave continue....I hope he has someone in his corner that can throw in the towel....
Apollo Creed that dude... he should have picked up his iPhone and sent a message saying he was going to do a hit piece to the subject before he did it.
During a 2015 televised panel discussion, Dr. Richard Dawkins (One of the World's Top Darwinian Evolutionary Scientists) admitted, “The Origin of Life is something we don't know anything about. And we want to know something about it. And I would love to know how life actually got started.” (Source: Real Time with Bill Maher, Overtime, October 2, 2015, HBO)
Nature does not need to start homochiral, it is just more efficient with macromolecules in a limited space that is the cell. As soon as a 3d (chiral) catalytic (production) site (in a ribozyme or enzyme) is evolved, THEN homochirality becomes the norm and peace-of-cake chemistry.
@@settledown444 I do find it hilarious that you would take the word of someone that doesn't even have a masters in chemistry over that of a professional chemist that worked for more than 30 years on synthetic organic chemistry and is one of the most highly cited scientists in his field of expertise. Have fun living by that standard.
@@settledown444 you say that because he has a PhD in his field and is highly recognized as an authority that he cannot be used in this case why? If anyone in your opposition were citing people without credentials you would likely be calling them out and saying that you cannot trust this individual. Here we are showing that the man James Tour has a plethora of credentials specifically in this field of expertise and he is breaking the information down for the laymen which you apparently have a problem with. You can call that a fallacy but you have not posted a single thing that refutes his points in any of his lectures. I ask that you show your evidence that Dr Tour has misled people otherwise you are just a liar and do not care about seeking the truth whatsoever. God bless you and my He lead you into all truth.
@@settledown444 you can make the claim that Tour is not an "authority" on Origin of Life research, however he has already questioned to no avail plenty of the researchers in OoL and even debated Lee Cronin on the speculation surrounding the research and you will have to show how he is wrong in his assertions regarding origin of life research scientifically instead of with "he is not an authority" which is a counter fallacy. Lee Cronin admitted that in order to create life we would need to change the definition of life to match something other than what we see in biological systems today. Redefining life in order to make it is another way of making this an unfalsifiable theory and with no way of resolving it in the near future. This semantics game that you folks love to play will inevitably ruin the entirety of science and corrupt the very foundation that allows us to do science in the first place. Every single theory is scrutinized and unfortunately for you the theory of Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis are being exposed daily as pseudoscience and vain philosophy that is unable to be established with anything more than conjecture. Your speculation of what Tour has said is also extremely lacking in substance. Tour is very concise in his lectures and thoroughly explains his terms and why he is having problems with what the Origin of life researchers claim happened. I feel sorry for you that you cannot understand this.
Hey Dr Tour, I see you are premiering these in the evenings US time. I've heard videos do best in the mornings US time since people are trying to distract themselves from work. Monday mornings seem to be a big day too.
Forty years ago they said that they will able to make a cell from scratch in 30 yrs. Forty years has passed by still they do not know how to make a cell. I did not want to waste the time waiting the answer from scientist, so I asked God. God are you there? And who are you? Praise God, He answered me.
If the Lord answered you that is fantastic. For others who received no answer consider the following. God knows your heart. Ask the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to show Himself to you. What is the condition of your heart towards God? He gave you a standard by which He would respond to anyone who ask with the right passion. Does your heart meet His standard? If not, don’t expect anything.
@@markoconnell804 No sorry, I’m afraid I am still not that clear. In the comment Adi made he pointed out he asked God and received and answer. I would say this is a natural thing for those claiming faith …. that while many may believe, Faith is a gift from the Father we received when we hear His voice. Is it that you are pointing toward?
No answer is a answer. He didn't answer me untill I would not get discouraged about non answers. It's His world, His will, His way not mine or man's. If you don't like it then you can keep trying to reach him. Don't give up, don't give in. Salvation is the most important thing to all humans. I'm sure one of you Atheist will comment so I will respond now. I love you for the human you are and pray God reaches your heart.
During an interview with Ben Stein, when asked about the origin of life (OoL), Dr. Richard Dawkins admitted that "we don't know [how life on earth started]." (Source: 'Expelled' DocuFilm, Dr. Richard Dawkins, One of World’s Top Darwinian Evolutionary Scientists, 2008).
“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” Max Plank (the Father of Quantum Physics) ... It is curious how Max Plank's conclusions were so revolutionary in the field of science / physics (i.e. the immaterial (non-material) reality of nature and "the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind" as the ultimate force behind the fabric of reality). Yet, when microbiologists. biologists, geneticists, biochemists, other scientists, etc. come to the same conclusion (i.e. Intelligence/consciousness/mind is an integral and fundamental force behind the initial introduction and subsequent propagation of biological systems), they are rebuffed as being "unscientific".
The fact remains that abiogenesis has not met the requirements of the scientific method "process" and is therefore still considered a "hypothesis" by the scientific community. Biogenesis has already passed the process of the scientific method countless times. Abiogenesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times. Pseudoscience is “a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.” By definition, Abiogenesis is classified as “Pseudoscience”.
Yeah that was the hardest hitting information in this video i believe. Good luck getting homochirality out of that @Professor Dave. Its hard enough to get any of these to form in the first place haha.
Thank you, Dr. James Tour. We love you and may the Lord always bless you and keep you safe...
Dr. Tour's passion is contagious. I love it.
@@settledown444 Yes its for celebration.
Look at the testimonies in comment sections, how many people came out from the delusional atheism worldview because of Dr. Tour's work.
@@galileog8945 And how did you estimate that ?
@@galileog8945 How is your wives boyfriend doing?
You know what, the choice of music is growing on me. The classical music at the beginning gets us into a calm, serene, cerebral atmosphere of "let's calmly and rationally look at some solid scientific facts" and as the lecture progresses we gradually transition into Tour's headspace of high-energy funky techno outrage
Classical music is one movement or one movement to another.
Nothing compares in the realm... A reason why the Beatles stole so many riffs from the Classical music bests.
People in mass didn't know at the time, but the 20% that did know weren't Beatles fans. Stealing from Chuck Berry, who used Beethoven riffs into guitar melodies.
Finally, someone sees what I see. Dr. Tour responds with class, keeps it professional, doesn't attack Dave, brings science to critique science, hence the classical. Then as the lecture progresses into solid point, BOOM, the beat comes out. Too bad people were critical of the music early on. Word has it, the producer (I know a guy) did this all pro bono and worked tireless hours on this. He really took this mob criticism to heart, and so he scrambled to touch up the music to calm people down who didn't see the big picture this masterpiece has become. He had created such a beautiful harmony with Tour's message and the music's message. Shame. Perhaps an apology is in order, and Episodes 0 and 1 have those pinned comments. Feel free.
Ive just come across this series after having heated discussions with my atheist-leaning agnostic partner about evolution and origin of life theories. This level of detail about the complexity further supports my arguments. Thank you for your thorough work. It's been a while since Ive had Chemistry but i was able to follow.
Thank you Dr Tour. Your words made me access my knowledge of chemistry terms from college. No wonder you are so successful in synthetic organic chemistry - you can see when something is wrong, and can specifically explain why.
I do not begin to claim understanding of the content addressed here, but thank God for his chosen individuals in his creation that are given the intelligence and ability to call out those with malice and evil intent in their hearts and work!
Nor does Tour, LOL
Amen, clarification counts in any context. It's a better to be factually correct than to be content "creator". Let's face it, God created the world of information.
@@chesterparsnip what's the point of trolling here?
@@corneliusteslaru9450 I feel stupidity should be challenged at every oppotunity.
@@chesterparsnip what is stupid, can you kindly specify?
As a scientist myself, I have to say that Prof. Dave got a thorough scientific whipping here! This video really exposes the biased (desperate) agenda of the proponents of abiogenesis. Either Prof. Dave did not understand what he was talking about or he deliberately misrepresented the data
God bless Dr Tour. Truth must triumph over lies and deceit.
Farina bachelor's degrees Is showing...... He's about as much of a professor as my mailbox
@@lexiconcapacitor586 a mailbox 📫 LOL
Amen to that, if the athiest had truth on their side they would not have to fight so hard to defend it. The truth defends itself!
The 24 elders (of revelation chapter 4) cast down their crowns saying:
"Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created."
I expect the substance of life will continue to confound materialists with its immense complexity, so far beyond human wisdom. This is a fruitful ministry brother Tour.
“Solved! Not solved. “. I laughed so hard.
I n
Loved this part and his passion that brakes through the logic and rational here and there. Made me laugh too. Had to watch it few times.
You are my Hero Dr. Tour! We the believers cannot win this battle on earth, but the more important battle for heaven has already been won. In the end, we will say like apostle Paul did, 2 Tim 4:7-8: " I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day-and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing." Amen and God Bless.
Amen, and Amen!!
In this video James demonstrates his complete inability to comprehend stochastic processes by totally misrepresenting a paper I referenced, as well as research on homochirality in general by quote mining Donna Blackmond and pretending that a statement she made about symmetry breaking is somehow representative of the entire field. It's really disgusting and pathetic behavior. To learn about all the methods we are aware of by which enantiomerically pure biomolecules can arise via crystallization, which James deliberately does not discuss in this video, watch my response to this series linked below. Essentially everything in this series is James either ignoring research or totally misrepresenting it, so don't kid yourself by thinking you have the full story. Admit that you are just accepting Jim's authoritative tone because you are aligned with his ideology. Have some courage. Listen to a summary of the real science he doesn't want you to see.
Part 1: th-cam.com/video/ghJGnMwRHCs/w-d-xo.html
Part 2: th-cam.com/video/Jf72o6HmVNk/w-d-xo.html
"Disgusting and pathetic behavior" isn't exactly conducive language that invites discussion if you want people to listen to you, bud. For someone who has made videos on logical fallacies, you sure like to use them. Your use of emotionally triggered language is already showing you're not exactly approaching this objectively.
@@winterlogical If you would care to watch the videos you see how wrong Tour is, the only question this time is will he once again apologise? He certainly should for the way he quote mined and took sentences completely out of context, shameful.
TH-cam video is not a Published paper.. So how about you defend it in here? As I'm not religious.. But I can spot people that use Science. As cover to practice being Bigots. Something I caught onto several years ago...
So lets start with what he Misrepresented. It better contain published papers that I can reference.. And yes I have subscriptions to Scientific Journals. So any horse shit like making shit up. I will come bet your ass silly with my Science Stick.
You even try and sneak in Processed Chemicals. That do not exist in Nature. Using controlled environments. Under the supervision of someone with a Mind. I will come bet your ass silly with that Science Stick Again. As that very thing. You are tying to disprove. Contradicts the narrative of Materialist want to portray..There is no God, Outside Agency, Creator. Outside the Universe. Something not one sane person would tell others. With any certainty. As it would require both parties with a common frame of reference to even discuss. That means your ass has to die. Then come back....And you can Quote Spock on that one..
As you people have got a pass for far to long. Running around making non Scientific Statements. Using Appeal to Authority. As shit for brains published some book. Then you latch onto that like Moses and the Ten Commandments. Come down from the hill. You should be ashamed of yourselves. But you're not. As your agendas is far worse then Religious people. As your ass will Lie, Steal, Cheat and use Deception. To pull one over on the average person. Well let me tell you something. There are many more where I come from. That are feed up with you people.
Generation Z is pissed off. You been robbing people of their time, labor and effort. Just as Thomas Sowell Predicted... The Zip Code Intelligentsia in Academia is run by Imbeciles and Cretins..
I will wait. While you produce them Published papers. That I can read... Not some TH-cam Video of horse shit indoctrination. Where someone dribbles down their lips. Pretending their Scientist..
Winter, there is no "emotionally triggered language" here. I am making factual statements about errors and lies committed by James. You're just whining about me being "triggered" because that's what stupid people do when they can't cope with facts, and you're too much of a coward to actually watch my response and find out how much of a fraud James is. Maybe bring that up with your therapist, eh kiddo?
@@WizzRacing Haha, you expect to be taken seriously when you can't even spell? Go get an education then people might take you seriously. Pathetic.
On behalf of all spiritual seekers worldwide your services to humanity are practically incalculable, but such are the workings of Divinity, who you represent. Thank you.
Details people, the details are important! Any time someone skips over details like it’s trivial with a subject like this, you always want to be skeptical... even if you don’t understand it (perhaps all the more reason).
Thank you for your work Dr. Tour, I pray God continues to greatly bless you and your family.
Yo Dr tour thank you for your dedication may God guide you to his path 💕
Le agradezco por dedicar de su tiempo para dar estas explicaciones que nos sacan de la ignorancia y me siento bendecido de ver el valor con que defiende la verdad sé que va contra la corriente, muchos lo vemos de lejos pero créame que nos unimos en un mismo pensamiento. Adelante Doctor
Thank you Dr Tour.
There are a lot of "Scientists" on YT and even documentaries on TV that make all sorts of claims. But when we get something like this video series, where we have an honest and highly trained and knowledgeable scientist critically analyzing claims of "scientists", it makes me even more suspicious and distrusting of these so-called scientists who are telling us what's what. Thank you Dr. Tours for taking the time to go through this and expose the inaccuracies and hyperbole of these so-called "scientists".
Thank you, Dr. Tour, for taking the time to do this.
You know what's really great about these videos from BOSS TOUR is even though I (and probably most of us) don't understand the really technical parts, or the processes, or the terminology... James does such a good job explaining EVERYTHING that you understand how unbelievably difficult (dare I say impossible) it would be for these things to happen BY CHANCE!!!! IT CAN HARDLY BE DONE AT ALL!!! Let alone naturally and by chance. I'm sorry... It takes way more faith then I can muster to believe anything other then a caring, loving God created us for His own purpose... Imagine.. if all the world had as much faith in God as "Professor" Dave and friends have in luck.
That's what science is about. Checking the work and poking holes into someone hypothesis. Your work is crucial for scientific accuracy, and gods has nothing to do with it. Progress is always seen in the rear mirrors. Thank you for your time and expertise.
So when ID proponents poke holes in Neo-Darwinism, you support that as part of what science is about, right?
Thank you so very much for this video series! It's so good and insightful that I wouldn't be surprised if even Dave Farina would subscribe to this channel. I was raised as a Christian from infancy and believed in a Creator until I started doubting in my late teens/early 20's and became agnostic. I didn't want to believe in something just because that's the way I was brought up, so I investigated other religions and the possibility of evolution. If I had access to this great information back then I likely wouldn't have gone through that short phase in my life. Thanks again!
This is amazing. Thank you for doing this.
Thank you - this is great. As another comment said, Dr Tour's passion is contagious.
Dr. Tour, I watched the show on the science channel last night about the Perseverance Mars robot. The hype is worse than you state. The robot is looking for clues about possible life on Mars and in the middle of the show they talk about how life originated on Earth. To paraphrase - deep under the ocean molecules self assembled to form the first unicellular organisms, which somehow evolved to photosynthetic cells, produced oxygen, which in turn gave rise to the rich array of animals we have today, starting around 580 million years ago. Wow. You were not exaggerating to call in hype.
As I understand it ee is enantiomeric excess. Typically you expect 50:50 mixtures which is ee 0. An ee of 100% would a 100:0 mixture which is homochiral. 22% would be a 61:39 mixture. And then if you have a yield of less than 1% ... I am starting to see why Dr Tour likes to shout NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Stick around I may need you again!
Why can't the 22% be a 39:61 mixture?
@@msvh-l9616 It can be. ee doesn't distinguish.
@@patldennis Because the organic chemicals that the OoL researchers use are bought in homochiral form. Again, if you dispute provide a reference.
@@patldennis Because we don't just assume the steps we don't know how to do.
Outstanding!! Thank you Dr. Tour.
JAMES TOTALLY WIPED THE FLOOR WITH Dave Farina............... amazing,
Great analysis Dr tour. Scientists need integrity n honest discussion.
@@derhafi we understand where science ends and where faith begins unlike scientism and scientists who make all sorts of claims
@@derhafi have you any idea what i am talking about. gotta read more man! scientism vs scientific method. vastly different things.
I got into a comment exchange with Dave on Dr. Tour's message. He basically just make accusation against my motivations and character. Later he deleted my original comments and his harsh responses. When you challenge some one's deeply held worldview they get angry in most cases.
absolutely true - still, I think it's worth it just to state your comment
_"When you challenge some one's deeply held worldview they get angry in most cases."_ It's called _cognitive bias_ and _cognitive dissonance._ i.e. _"one's deeply held worldview"_ = cognitive bias, _"When you challenge... they get angry"_ i.e. _"cognitive dissonance"._ = They go into fight or flight response and have physiological reactions.
Yes, “Professor Drop Out” Dave is reduced to name calling when actual scientists show up. My guess is he never read that crappy chem comm paper and just extrapolated from reading the abstract.
Well when they're a phony they get mad... when they are legit they hit you with the real, as Dr. Tour has done here and many other creation scientist are doing across many disciplines.
He suffers from cognitive dissonance like all athiest.
Thank you for your hard work and time on this issue.
These days reading science is like plowing through Pravda in the USSR... it hard to separate out truth from lies
I was born and raised in that place. Funny to hear you understand what was it like. Kudos.
@@corneliusteslaru9450 Yes. It was a real eye opener. There were not many Americans there at the time
@@donaldjacobson4184 Indeed very few and those under microscope. Dealing with science these days- you said it well, but it keeps you sharp and within the habit of questioning everything established as axioms.
@@corneliusteslaru9450 absolutely
More like watching CNN in the USA, or the BBC in the UK.
Great series. You’d expect this to be highlighted all over. Instead, war on the truth is carried all over. Sad, and futile.
_"war on the truth is carried all over"_ Oh, how right you are. There is a war against the truth, but it isn't just contained within the scientific community.
Nihilism has taken root. The Love corps is the head of prisons, the Peace Corps are the Military and the double-speak is the Media.
The basis of evolutionists that there is only relativism / postmodernism, there is no truth.
Same as Pontius Pilate ask Jesus, *"What is truth"?* - while the ultimate truth was staring Pilate in the face.
@@Alec_Cox _"Pontius Pilate ask Jesus, "What is truth"? - while the ultimate truth was staring Pilate in the face."_ 👍
I'm so grateful for you teaching us this thank you
I'm a HS chemistry teacher so I'm used to talking to lay people. So let's talk separation. One of the 1st labs I do with my students is I give them a mixture of salt and sand and tell them to separate the mixture into two things; pure sand and pure salt.
The idea in chemistry is any two substances can be separated, if they somehow behave differently. Sand is different than salt so this process is easy.
Its easier to separate dimes and quarters than it is to separate nickels and quarters. Likewise, salt and sugar is more difficult to separate than salt and sand.
IT IS EXTREAMLY DIFFICULT TO SEPARATE A COMPOUND INTO ITS LEFT AND RIGHT STEREOISOMERS. If the compound is complex like a protein, separation is impossible.
Haha you should tell this to all the laypeople that are in this thread saying that people like you and Dr have no clue what you are talking about. God bless you.
I love the way you can simplify for the layman.
Great job of immense importance! 👍
I'm slowly picking up the basics👍
yes... but stick with it cause it's worth every effort. Well done!
Hi Dr Tour, may I offer some constructive criticisms?
Firstly, the information you provided above was informative and convincing, and I appreciated the indepth study of the journal paper because it brought up the vital issues of yield and efficiency, and how these details are not given proper attention in abiogenesis.
However, I felt that the video did not connect the concept of homochirality (which was well explained) with its relevance and application in biology and abiogenesis.
Specifically which isomers, and which homochiral molecules are significant in abiogenesis, and why?
What is their function in the cell?
What are the difficulties and procedures in producing specifically these homochiral molecules?
The video was aimed more as a direct response to Dave's citation of that journal paper, and so did not educate the viewer sufficiently on the topic as a whole.
Perhaps, this video could have been longer, and could have gone into the relevance and application in abiogenesis (and biology).
Or, could you follow this video up with another?
Nevertheless, thank you for addressing this topic in the manner that you have chosen.
For example, here is a useful quote from Wikipedia that shows the relevance of homochirality and a connection between enantiomers (mirror image, chiral isomers) and biology:
"Enantiomers behave identically in chemical reactions, except when reacted with chiral compounds or in the presence of chiral catalysts, such as most enzymes. For this latter reason, the two enantiomers of most chiral compounds usually have markedly different effects and roles in living organisms. In biochemistry and food science, the two enantiomers of a chiral molecule - such as glucose - are usually identified, and treated as very different substances."
Is this why the next video is about sugars?
He covers most of your questions asked. Like why is it important for homochiral forms of the molecules and how they are used in specific cell structures.
Someone needs to arrange an intervention for “Professor” Dave, or call LAPD for a wellness check. He’s in a pretty bad state right now. He’s been reduced to calling everyone names at this point in the reply section of his site. I’m serious. If this was a sanctioned bout with the boxing commission, Dave’s manager would have thrown the towel and called the fight. He’s in danger of hurting himself.
Someone needs to force Dave Farina into a live stream debate with Dr. Tour or better still one in front of a live audience in an auditorium. If you take away FAKE "Professor" Dave's ability to Google answers on the internet I think the debate will be pretty one-sided. Let's face it. It will be a pretty one-sided debate irrespective of the venue or medium used to facilitate this. Dave's main claim to fame after all is humiliating Flat Earthers. Hardly challenging academically speaking.
He actually commented on the first video and indicated that James Tour was confused and he was hoping to educate him. Since then he's been strangely quiet. :) He was derogatory towards Christianity in his video, then got a whole lot of Christians objecting, then called them all stupid and followers of James Tour. With regards to boxing, me and my wife get James Tour and David Tua muddled up. :)
@@jeremybeavon4476 _"He actually commented on the first video and indicated that James Tour was confused and he was hoping to educate him. Since then he's been strangely quiet."_ From memory Dave Farina did NOT comment to James Tour directly. Only to other people commenting on this forum. Most of the time he was trying to increase traffic to his channel and ad revenue by urging people to watch his videos. Highly unethical behaviour IMO. I have posted a direct invitation to Dave on his *Elucidating the Agenda of James Tour: A Defense of Abiogenesis* video which he has already deleted.
Couldn't agree more with the debate idea. But don't hold your breath. Dave is like all cowards. They run and hide and never admit to their errors.
@@Locutus.Borg.
WHAT!!!😳. The earth is not flat!!?
Now I understand what left and right is, thanks.
Grateful for Dr. Tour 🙏pray God continue to give wisdom to expose the hype and propaganda that has caused so many being confused and deceived many.
Thank you Dr Tour. One word for your Work! Fantastic TRUE science!
It is pleasing to see an academic arguing his case, giving his reasons why he is questioning and arguing against the "supposed consensus."
The homochirality problem is really a subset of the "bad things that can bind" to monomers. For RNA or proteins to work, each part needs the appropriate connector, and wrong chirality wrecks everything. Thus, given polymers must be homochiral, a random set of amino acids has a (1/2)^n chance of being homochiral, which is small. However, it's not obvious there are often many other potential mishaps, including binding to the "different compounds," which Tour references around 22:27. It's not obvious how relevant this impurity point is; how this stuff is basically just like a right-handed amino acid (ie, dead).
For example, an amino acid in a mixture of sugars could link to sugar instead of another amino acid, wrecking the protein; a phosphate in a proto-RNA could bind to another phosphate instead of sugar, destroying that potential RNA. Further, not only is there a mix of any particular enantiomers, but also many different types of sugars, amino acids, and nucleobases (each of which has enantiomers). Generally, these are produced together. For example, ribose is one of many sugars produced in any sugar-producing process; there are just as many non-biologic amino acids generated along with our base set of biological 20 amino acids. Thus the purity of the potential binding agents is heavily managed in origin-of-life studies to avoid this via step-by-step purification, reagents, etc. One could add the fact that bindings can occur at various points that would destroy an RNA, in that there are 5 binding sites on ribose for the nitrogen base.
The bottom line is that given a soup of amino acids the odds of them forming a potential protein n units long is not just (1/2)^n, but more like (1/6)^n given the number of non-biological amino acids swimming around. For a proto-RNA, the problem is much worse given the probability of binding to the wrong thing (sugar vs. phosphate), the different sugars that would be present, the wrong binding site on the sugar molecule, and 8 enantiomers of a nucleobase instead of 2, the odds are not (1/2)^n but (1/1000)^n.
Given this starting improbability, one can then address whether such a polypeptide would have a stable protein structure that might actually link or do something in concert with another protein, or that a nucleotide polymer would have a meaningful code. The odds quickly rise to the point where it is more probable the reader has a Boltzmann brain, a random collection of molecules that create a brain that perceives itself to think it is living as we do.
How long have you been a Christian? Your blog said you became one recently but I didn't see a date on when it was posted. You seem to understand a bit more about this stuff then I do. I figured you must be a professor somewhere so I looked you up. How does someone go from being a financial genius to microbiology? Are you in MSP?
@@blusheep2 About six years. I live in Eden Prairie.
I had previously not been aware in a qualitazive sensr of how much more chemical instable/reactive RNA is compared to DNA (that csn make it a usefull tool but a bad long term information career). But in the RNA world hypothesis this is instsbility brcomes cumulative problem when you add it to the idea of a proto cell or no cell. In both cases there is no homoeostasis. So heridity shall not only start with a molecule that is much more fragil (RNA) than what life actually uses today but that much more fragil thing is as well suposed to survive without the protection of the cell that the more stable DNA still needs to survive.
Kind of related to this, I have done over the years a video series addressing what Atheists call contradictions in the bible.
Whilst no where near as technical as this, I discovered basically what you discovered, that in almost 100% of the cases, they are either severely overhyping the issue or not even reading the material they are critiquing. I was actually taken back by this to some degree because I actually expected to find some kind of substance to their objections, but it was so easy that for a while I actually thought I was badly missing something.
Also, being an Engineer, I found the exact same thing with regards to the severely overhyped notion of evolutionary algorithms that are supposed to assist with design concepts etc... but which only work precisely because they aren't evolutionary at all but are rather highly tuned, highly refined, directed and so forth.
Thank you for parsing this stuff out Dr Tour, no one is really talking about chemistry in this way.
Love all this technical stuff - Have to stop the video and go over it again. Kind of get it (I think): homochirality, non-congruant, sterogenic center, racemic, enantiomer, etc.
Love to follow your lectures. Bless you for sharing the knowledge.
Love to listen to Dr Tour!...learn so much
I often wondered what the “howitzer in my back pocket” you’ve mentioned in the past looked like!
Maybe I missed it, but I recommend that you begin the video with the reason why homochirality is important topic wrt abiogenesis (i.e. biologically relevant molecules and processes are very specific to/limited by chirality). As a synthetic chemist, I'm loving these videos!
He's answering the Professor Dave's video in which he arrogantly dismissed the difficulty of separating chirality. So Dr. Tour explains here that no, it's _really hard._
When James Tour watched the Dave Farina video, he said "What? Hold my beaker!"
As organic chemist I always wondered how chirality originated. In lab you always use some reagent/crystal that is already chiraly pure. But chirality had to start somehow. I would like hear more about some teories about that.
I defended Dr. Tour based on science. Professor Dave replied that Dr. Tour is a liar because of his religion. He never tried to address the science. That told me all I needed to know about the mental acuity of Professor Dave.
Its very unscientific to characterize and label people with negative stereotypes that don’t match, have evidence, or tests. Can hypocrites of that level and character be trusted to produce truthful findings and educate people?
@@boltrooktwo exactly. These individuals are finally being exposed as the false teachers that they are. I don't think that anyone has to believe one way or the other to agree that Dr Tour has been offering a very concise and well evidenced critique of the OoL research over the last 65+ years. He is just taking it all to the woodshed because of their extrapolations and extraordinary claims that appear to not be possible whatsoever in a "natural" prebiotic setting. The saddest thing is that these same researchers make discoveries in their respective fields and fail to realize that these discoveries create an exponential number of a questions regarding these studies and the possibilities involved. All I can do is pray that God will remove the scales from their eyes and they will one day see the truth as it is clearly indicated.
E X T R A O R D I N A R Y WORK... Plato’s good friend, but truth’s and God’s best... God protect you and those who helped you and your family and friends...
Thanks you Father for your children and our special gifts, in the name of King Jesus!!!
God bless you Mr James. The impossibility of evolution is there for all to.see.
Think again then
link where he says "clueless" two times. 25:44
Even nobel prize winning scientists have drunk of the darwinism/marxism Kool Aid and engage in evolutionary fairy tale story telling. But the great Dr Tour is unafraid to call them out (Episode 3 - 38:18). Love it!!!
Professor Dave's inaccuracies so far: (The best of...)
1. Use of the word Biochemistry. Whilst biochemists do study OoL and biochemicals did exist before life, there was no biochemistry occuring in prebiotic reactions, just plain dead chemistry. Hence the field - prebiotic chemistry and the meaning of the word abiogenesis (origin without biology/non-biological origin). It's a contradiction of terms. It was strictly chemistry. (Anyone who disagrees with this, show me the biochemistry occuring before life began.)
2. Entropy/Thermodynamics argument is an ignorant fallacy?? - a great decrease in entropy WITH a great increase in energy, needed for life, has never ever been observed in the universe without HELP (Dr Brian Miller PhD - expert in thermodynamics), it is a physical impossibility if unaided. Therefore, the examples of ice and soap, order arising (entropy decreasing) from a decrease in energy (driven by nature's preference for a lower energy equilibrium state) as a rebuttal for the argument based upon the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a straw man, it is missing half of the argument. (Anyone who dismisses Dr Miller because he believes in God, prove he is scientifically wrong...)
3. Hype is from the media, NOT the scientists?? - Completely false, Tour's whole video addresses this. Hype can be from the scientists themselves and in many cases the media do consult with them prior to publishing their work, hence they are culpable in this too. Dave has never published a peer reviewed paper so he would not know the intricate details of how this works. (See episode 3 for references)
4. Dave's homochirality assessment is riddled with errors - Tour analysed he actual paper and the SLIGHT excess of asparagine (said in the video) was actually greater than 99% asparagine, an important detail. The enantiomeric excess wasn't pure, for Phe it had a max of 22% of the remaining 1%, a terrible efficiency. The data for other amino acids reveals a broad spread of ee % for both D and L forms, leading the authors to conclude this is just as likely to produce a racemic aftermath as a result, not a homochiral one (from the conclusion of the actual paper).
5. Carbohydrates - Dave states in his video that polysaccharides are repeating units of the SAME monomer, this is utterly false! Many different monomers can make up polysaccharides. Also, use of the word TRICKY in their synthesis is a gross understatement worth mentioning, which Tour goes on to explain in some detail.
6. Any biomolecule is easy to synthesize?? A grossly ridiculous statement. They are hard to synthesize, especially in homochiral form even using ACTIVATE D building blocks taken from nature, side chain protection and removal.. which is common procedure.
7. Primordial soup belief and Honest Talking points - Dave states "to call [seeing a primordial soup of molecules, some lightening and then all of a sudden a cell is there, then maybe a lizard crawling onto land or something like that] a complete view of abiogenesis and evolution would be absurd, but absolutely no one proposes this." Dave states Tour is making a dishonest talking point here, however, Tour shows a video where Lee Cronin (OoL expert) said that Justin Brierley's GCSE [high school] education on his very thing - i.e. "A few lightening strikes and then 'poof!' a cell forms" - was 'not too bad at all". Dr Tour also showed a survey of 697 people, 80% of whom have college degrees, and of this group, ~73% believed scientists researching OoL have created simple life forms via mixing prebiotic chemicals. Therefore 1) it is indeed an honest talking point and 2) Dave's statement "absolutely no one proposes this" has evidence that highly suggests otherwise. (Thanks Bart)
8. Polymer regeneration fallacy. Dave proposed a constant equilibrium reaction to continuously regenerate proteins and RNA from their respective monomers and their even smaller building blocks to overcome Tour's point of molecular degradation over time. This has many catastrophic problems, here's just 3: 1) The equilibrium value would have to be 1 for the required formation/degredation balance. Most reactions do not work like this, it's a thermodynamic fallacy to presume so. The product with the lower energy state is favoured, tipping it's equilibrium one way or the other, not a nice perpetual regeneration. 2) Even ignoring this, many other reactions will occur, not just the desired polymerization. Without side chain protection, racemic, branched JUNK is inevitable. 3) Even ignoring 1 and 2, The polymer needs to be of meaningful sequence to be useful, otherwise it's JUNK! Regeneration of the SAME meaningful sequence is astronomically low - this is before self-replication, therefore anything of potential use would just degrade, likely never to be reproduced.
9. Proteins (could have, may, perhaps) possibly... formed in the ocean. Condensation reactions extremely ineffective in water, the equilibrium drives the reaction backwards, back to amino acids, any proteins break down or are blocked from forming due to the zwitterionic nature of amino acids. Homochirality is bereft of an explanation.
10. His misleading, illinformed slide showing ribonucleotides polymerizing over hot clay is TORN TO SHREDS by Dr Tour. It all looks so easy according to Dave. However.... 1) No prebiotic route to ribose for the starting materials. 2) The clay and the procedure is a prebiotic joke, neither would occur. (Centrifuge 3500rpm??) 3) HOT clay considering the instability of RNA above minus 80??? 4) Catastrophic polymerization problems - wrong linkages causing termination 5) Getting the thing off the clay is even unprebiotic.
11. Cell membranes (Dave "grabbing things out of the air and proclaiming it from the rooftops") Dave's postulated lipid monolayer for protocells is unfounded and is not demonstrated as viable ANYWHERE in the scientific literature and has never been shown to exist. The postulated lipid bilayers devoid of protein gateways or proton gradients would just act as a TOMB for anything inside that may have miraculously formed. Also, the complex non-symmetric bilayers necessary for life do not form spontaneously.
12. Lipids - The spontaneous origin of fatty acids from hydrothermal vents is highly disputed, more likely deriving from oil products of biological origin. Even if we give you the fatty acids.. Salad dressing won't suffice Dave! Lipids made from simple fatty acids are unable to maintain proton gradients essential for life - phospholipids must've been there from the beginning. See episode 10 for their implausible origin.
13. Homochirality1- Given the terrible ee% excess in Dave's example, to stand any chance of leading to homochirality, it would need an exemplary prebiotically relevant autocatalytic reaction inducing enantiomeric amplification. One has never ever been discovered! The only known reaction to do this is the Soai reaction, however, this is - 1) Prebiotically irrelevant 2) Nowhere near efficient enough 3) Nowhere near persistent enough. (Donna Blackmond)
How did proteins become homochiral when there's no prebiotically relevant route ever shown to make the amino acids in homochiral form, or to separate the enantiomers, or to polymerize them?
14. Homochirality2 - Dave claims homochirality could've arrived after life began... Baseless. Implausible. Unscientific. There is no evidence for claimed racemic mixtures (no homochirality) being usable in cells. They have never been shown to function based on the reaction specificities, yields and heat management that would be needed for cellular systems (see CISS in episode 11). Dave suggested this for lipids but VAST numbers of electron transfers take place in lipid bilayer membranes, so it's baseless to dismiss the need for lipid homochirality (see CISS).
15. Dave gets his abiogenesis information from Wikipedia (at best) but more than likely from the Sunday tabloids or his local gazette. When (if) referencing peer reviewed papers, his source material rarely ventures past the abstract of any given paper. If not study the entire paper, at least read it's conclusions which usually provide a more balanced assessment than the abstract. Come on Dave, do your homework!
Post this on Dave’s video. Now to find my popcorn.
Man, you're taking some seriously detailed notes!
I'm also a layperson who is a science and philosophy enthusiast. I have been following closely all the debates between theistic and atheistic scientists for a while now and I must say that for me, the more I learn about scientific discoveries the more I see the handiwork of God, and of course, I'm aware that I come to this topic with confirmation bias.
It seems to me that Paul was right when he remarked that our problem is not the lack of evidence of God's existence but rather the suppression of that evidence. And I think this is demonstrated by how the majority of atheistic scientists do their science. I think Dave Farina’s gross misrepresentation of science was intentional and I think this easily shows how deeply committed he is to naturalism. I'm not surprised though because this is what you get from the majority of atheistic scientists.
Really?? Then try harder as there's no such thing as a "god", either that or you show me empirical evidence that your particular god exists.
Jesus was a fictional person as is/was your god.
Look back at history, every civilisation has had a pantheon of various gods so yours is no different, they come and go with time, none of them are real.
@@ramptonarsecandle The irony of this is that you are asking me for empirical evidence of God's existence whereas you have not provided any empirical evidence for denying God's existence. So may I ask you where is your empirical evidence for denying God's existence? Both you and I cannot prove/disprove God’s existence because God is not an object of an empirical study that can be measured with earthly/scientific means. This then leaves us with the option of philosophy - making arguments of reason based upon the nature of things and the dynamics of causality.
Having said that, I do believe that we have good reasons to believe that God does exist. One of them is the fact that our planet, with the confluence of circumstances that gave rise to us, is statistically impossible, even given all the stars and galaxies in the Universe. The emergence of intelligent life is so outlandishly unexpected, given all the factors that needed to occur in just the right particular order, that our Universe must have been designed specifically to give rise to us. It seems to me that the odds of us coming to be would be so infinitesimally small that it’s unreasonable to believe it could have happened by chance. This one of the compelling arguments for me.
As far as Jesus of Nazareth, it seems like you are taking the view of mythicism. If that's the case then I think you will have a hard time substantiating your claim because we have overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ was a real historical person. Besides the New Testament document, Jesus’s life is also recorded in the Jewish Talmud. Furthermore, ancient historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, and Philo wrote about Jesus’s life. Have you ever heard of the name Bart Ehrman? Have you ever read his books? If not, I would recommend that you get his books or watch the debate he had with the mythicist Robert Price. The debate was titled “Did Jesus exist?”.
@@zolisanomandla1086 Again really ??? I can't believe you've asked me that!
I cannot prove a negative, your god is a negative ergo I cannot show evidence that it does not exist. The god of the gaps is not-falsifiable "You can't prove he doesn't exist or that he didn’t do X" (onus probandi)
. Are you really that stupid I wonder?
No you need to show positive evidence that your particular god exists otherwise you have noting but your faith.
Jesus?? Are you for real? All of the historians you cite are born way after Jesus died, Tacitus for example was born in AD67 and didn't write anything about your jesus until 116AD, Josephus's account was known to be falsified as was the Jewish Talmud so you don't get away with that! No you show me some contemporary evidence and I will take you seriously.
I have read all of Ehrman and I have also read Richard Carrier who concludes Jesus is just a myth, have you read him or David Fitzgerald? He also concludes your Jesus is just a myth, his book is called "Nailed"
Show me these reasons your god exists or you are just another know nothing wanabe christian f*** wit
Your call big man
@RetroMan Umm you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you? Anyone who doesn't know the difference between "you're" and "your" has, as you like to say the writing spelling and grammar of a 5 year old.
You also clearly have no idea of what "burden of proof" actually means. The theist is the one defining a god that exists, it is not the atheist defining a god and then saying it doesn’t exist.
"You can't prove he doesn't exist or that he didn’t do X" (onus probandi)
If I said I could fly would you believe me or would you ask for evidence? Do you see now, it's you that is saying your god exists not me therefore it's you that has to show evidence, I cannot prove a negative. If you don't understand that then there's very little point in discussing this further.
I made sure to put my kids asleep before witnessing this beat down...
I usually play solitaire or do something else while I watch videos. But man! I had to pay strict attention and rewind several times to follow this one. Good!
If it's easy like Dave says where are his examples of natural processes separating molecules in nature? Even in you grant him that it's easy he still misses the point and that is scientists are doing it in a clean lad with intelligent input to get what they're after. He can't see the forest through the trees..
Dr Tour - hats off - you are risking as much in your field as Jordan Peterson in his. Would be great to have you, Jordan and Meyer together on the show. My 2 cents, what I feel from your presentation is that modern Darwinian science has created a god of gaps religion, hence they dont see beyond the concept of evolution and everything else has to fit in - just like Darwin. Watched your discussion with Dave- well if thats not religious man believing in concepts over true explanation than I dont know what. Jordan Peterson stated (I paraphrase): "scientist has to be honest with interpretation of his/her work because they can make up meaning of the statistics, results, twist the interpretation the way they want... and then in fear of loosing they reputation they continue with their lies" I think this fits Darwin's concept, and certainly origin of life scientists.
I am a composer by my passion and studies, origin of life science is like throwing bricks on the piano a call it JS Bach because it hit note C.
Love your work, gotta notice you through Stephen Meyer. Will continue watching your Bible videos too. God Bless in Jesus name, shalom
Thank you for these videos! I am enjoying them very much and have learned a lot!
Seriously? You've learnt precisely nothing as they are full of mistruths and out and out lies. Do some research, believe that someone who mentions "god" or "Jesus" isn't always telling the truth, as here
@@ramptonarsecandle Really? Can you show me this so I can understand what you mean? Do you have any evidence to back up your claims? I would like to see it.
@@shelleygiesbrecht4759 Seems I'm being blocked, what does that tell you??
Google Liar for jesus
@@ramptonarsecandle blocked by who? I got your message through this comment section so it doesn’t look like it to me.
@@shelleygiesbrecht4759 I had to re-jig it. It would appear they don’t like direct links
Why is it important to separate enantiomers? If they have the same BP, MP and solubility, etc. why worry about separating? What does homochirality have to do with OoL? Maybe it's addressed in the next video and I'm jumping ahead.
Covered in the CISS video.
Proteins, sugars, and lipids (fats) are homochiral. If we (possibly intelligent beings) work very hard to separate the enantiomersor prepare only 1, how would an unintelligent nature make only one enantiomer
Where, how does chirality take place or occur in protein assembling? Where are the amino acids formed themselves and how is the sequencing of the 20 amino acids accomplished?
I believe the sequencing is controlled by the DNA. And it's the sequencing that is so amazing. Assume for example you're talking about a protein with 150 sequenced amino acids. Now the functionality of the protein is directly a function of the type and sequencing of these amino acids. The odds of getting those amino acids sequenced by chance if 1 / 20^150. That's a friggin big number.
It's not just that we haven't figures some parts out, WE... REMAIN... CLUELESS...
I'm dying.
I value this series highly, and have developed deep respect for James Tour. But I feel one Biblical quote should be applied in context of positioning this whole presentation as a response to Dave Farina: Do not cast peals before swine. Trolls never take ownership of their distortions.
Everybody please pray for this great man.
At the moment he is not on the radar of the insane political leftist atheist ideology and true science deniers .
But in just these few series of lectures, has :
1. demonstrated the wildly inaccurate claims by respected scientist,
2. the inefficiency of the peer review system that allows sloppy research to be presented as evidence bolstering the origin of life sciences
3. The complicity of the media to amplify unscientific claims
4. The reluctance of the academic community to properly critique and call out antiscientific claims within its own community
If his series of lectures gets more views he will become a target just like anyone that points to truth in these horrifically concerning days .
Unfortunately Dr. Tour is already a target of the evolutionary crowd. Since they are no match for his knowledge they attack him on religious grounds. Shows how desperate and out of touch with reality they are.
Abiogenesis Hypothesis postulates that undirected random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment.
Toure writes there are 2^n isomers where n is the number of stereogenic centers. Isn't the isomer label a larger class than that, in that 2^n refers only to the stereoisomers? Or does stereoisomer refer to pairs within an isomer, which can be either diastereomers or enantiomers?
Yes, it would be stereoisomers. He mentioned that he might make little mistakes like this throughout the video.
Good catch. I teach this stuff every fall. Aside from that minor mistake, he gave a decent overview
This is a quote from an article by Education Week dated March 06, 2019 on the credentials of Dave Farina:
"Farina, who taught in high school and undergraduate classrooms for 10 years before turning into a TH-camr, received a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from Minnesota’s Carleton College and a master’s in chemistry and science education at California State University. His career included a full-time position teaching chemistry, biology, and physics at a private school in Hollywood, and substitute teaching in the San Francisco Bay Area, before transitioning to lecturing at a trade university."
However, this is not accurate. This is another example of media hype.
Dave actually never finished the Master's program, though he made two attempts. According to Dave, on his first attempt, he dropped out to play music in a band, and on his second attempt, he lost his job teaching undergraduate chemistry at SCUHS, and could not continue his Master's.
Therefore, his highest academic credentials are a Bachelor degree in chemistry from Carleton college, and he taught an undergraduate course for about 4 semesters (approximately 2 years) at a private college called the Southern California University of Health Sciences, which offers two year degrees.
One should note, however, that Dave is not qualified to teach undergraduate level chemistry without a Master's degree.
@@settledown444 In short, prior to TH-cam, Dave may have had 10 years of teaching experience at the level of high school and a trade university.
Facts are important, even if hype is more popular.
@@settledown444 not even close Tim. Tour is pointing out that biologists are simply not chemists. OOL is chemistry not biology. Tour’s arguments are comparable in quality to the arguments that biologists first faced and steadfastly ignored from the physicists, chemists, mathematicians and information scientists who first pointed out the difficulties of Darwin’s theory of evolution at the Wistar Symposium in the 1960’s. Those arguments underlying many of the arguments that plague evolution to this day. Systems Biology has now eclipsed Darwin. OOL cannot solve the information problem. Homochirality and nucleotide sequences are a form of information and are critical to living systems.stay tuned for carbohydrates next week.
@@settledown444
You're still butt-hurt?
I put it in layman terms so you'd get the point.
You're off your rocker if you believe what comes out of your head as a post on YouBoobTube.
To elucidate, you don't know squat.
@@settledown444 If anyone is raving it is you. Just calm down.
James Tour did not accuse anyone of lying, but of contributing to hype in the abiogenesis field, which does confuse and mislead people.
He convincingly demonstrated that their conclusions were hype.
Scientists should be more cautious about their conclusions and stick to the facts demonstrated by their experiments, rather than express their imagination of possible events and scenarios.
@@Josdamale Why did he apologise then? Here's an excerpt from his letter;
"Dear Peter, thank you for writing to me. That was a strong word (“lying”) which I regret saying. I have already apologized to Jack Szostak by phone, and he very graciously accepted the apology. If given a chance, I would likewise apologize to any of those cited in that talk to whom I said such a thing. My behavior was inappropriate."
So you need to retract your statement that Tour did not accuse anyone of lying because here is evidence he very much did.
Seems you need to apologise now, wonder if you will???
It's not a question of whether creationists lie it's a question of when...................
Thank you very much dr. Tour!
To the honour and glory of our one and only Lord Jezus Christ!
LOVE these videos!! Keep em coming
Please, no more misinformation!!! Tour has been shown to be a liar.
@@ramptonarsecandle don’t make baseless claims. Be specific. What was the lie you mentioned and provide at least a link to it. I am sure Dr. Tour could make a mistake when saying things. That is different from lying. I’ll wait.
@@markoconnell804 I’m not doing your research for you, google “James Tour liar for Jesus “
if you want to know, it’s all there.
@@markoconnell804 There are numerous examples of Tour lying and of Tour calling other people liars. He has had to publicly apologise to many people before and retract his accusations. Here's an excerpt from a letter he wrote;
Dear Peter, thank you for writing to me. That was a strong word (“lying”) which I regret saying. I have already apologized to Jack Szostak by phone, and he very graciously accepted the apology. If given a chance, I would likewise apologize to any of those cited in that talk to whom I said such a thing. My behavior was inappropriate.
Like many things that I do and say in life, there are elements upon which I have regrets and wish that I had done differently. My life is filled with those occasions. In fact, I can literally claim almost daily I do something or say something which I wish I had not. Those closest to me get the brunt of it, but thankfully they have also been gracious in forgiving me. And for that I am thankful.
You can research more but I doubt you want your illusion shattered, it won't alter the fact it's all out there.
@@ramptonarsecandle This is horse crap. He was talking about OOL researchers and their misleading statements. It's obvious he felt bad about using the word "lying" when he should have said they were grossly in error. He never backed off the claim they were misleading. And to call Tour a "liar" because he criticized the particular OOL makes you a liar.
Shabbat shalom!
What a roast! I kind of feel sorry for Dave, but let's face it- he had it coming!
Thank you this is awesome God bless you
I watch the competing video presentations back and forth between Tour and Dave, and I must say that some segments such as these I understand next to nothing. This underpins the reality that people like myself really have to go on trust in the person presenting information. We are at their mercy, as we are furthermore predisposed to the biases we bring in trying to discern just who is speaking the truth.
This is why it is essential that, in the current instance, we understand the rhetorical significance where Professor Dave puts his finger on the scale at the opening of his video (and elsewhere), where he says, in effect, that you cannot trust Tour on this subject because of his Christian fundamentalist "headspace," as he calls it. (He is sharp in his use of imagery to persuade. The clip showing Tour in the cushy, throne-like chair and speaking with religious zeal sure has its impact! Yet, it is so far removed in its impression from the plain suited, hard working, and plain speaking scientist doing his work. And it has nothing to do with argument from science.) Professor Dave constantly derides Tour a "charlatan" and a "liar" in the comment section of his video. Yet, this rhetorical tactic on his part is at the heart of trying to convince by deceptive means. He wants to discredit Tour by pointing to his religious beliefs, and then telling the viewers that they therefore cannot trust him on this subject. From that point, it manipulates the response of those of us who are at the mercy of having to put our confidence where we are not qualified to discern the facts. This is a blatantly deceptive ploy, and only diminishes whatever trust I might have been willing to concede to Prof. Dave. The irony is that Tour's faith, according to my own bias, compels his conscience toward impartiality in seeking truth, while P. Dave only sees the man indoctrinated to tow the anti-scientific line. A significant distinction between them in this regard is that Tour never uses his religion to make his scientific observations, while Prof. Dave uses Tour's religion (and so his own apparent atheism) to persuade in his own presentation of the subject here.
Very well put, thank you for your comment
@@Ssevcikm Thanks for reading.
The honorable thing for Prof Dave to do would be to admit his error and offer Dr. Tour a sincere and true apology.
What's the name of the music in the beginning?
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." (*The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80.) The probability of a functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by undirected random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that undirected random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what many of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a purely arbitrary, subjective, materialistic ideology.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic subjective ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millenia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by discoveries in Quantum Physics.
I got from this video that "Prof" Dave grossly overstated the results of a journal paper, however, I did not get the significance of Homochirality in either biochemistry or abiogenesis.
I would have liked to have seen the connection of Homochirality with the building blocks of cells.
What is it that abiogenesis has to achieve and why?
@@settledown444 nothing could be further from the truth. “Professor” Dave explained away the problem of chirality in a misleading way. Dave is in tears on his own website yelling at everyone and calling them names. He’s in a meltdown. If he wants to go on Dr Tours show and debate he’s welcome to do that as Dr Tour has made clear. Dave’s just in over his head that’s all.
Isomers are two molecules that have the same atomic composition, but are not identical.. Many organic compounds form constitutional isomers which are also called structural isomers. ( The basis is purposeful and unguided under enclosed and favorable entropic conditions within a biosphere and environment that favors the organism to grow in).They have the *same empirical formula, but the atoms are connected in a different way* .For example, C 2 H 6 O C_2H_6O C 2 H 6 O is the empirical formula for both ethanol and dimethyl ether. They operate differently. Vastly. This means that diethyl ether cannot form hydrogen bonds with the water molecules, this means the dimethyl ether is immiscible with water. In ethanol the oxygen atom is bonded to a hydrogen which gives it a dipole, this allows the ethanol molecule to form hydrogen bonds with the water molecules and therefore it is miscible with water. such complexity and variations with simple reconfiguration.
Another example - The chiral self-sorting process during the self-assembly of homochiral Pd6L8 capsules from cyclotriveratrylene (CTV)-based chiral tritopic ligands (L) and PdPy*
4ðOTfÞ2 (Py*: 3-chloropyridine) was investigated by an NMR-based approach
(QASAP: quantitative analysis of the self-assembly process).
From the beginning to the formation of the Pd6L8Py*
2 immature capsules (ICs), enantiomeric ligands are distributed in the intermediates in a non-self-sorting manner, which leads to the isomers of heterochiral
ICs over 99% yield.
*The mismatch of the chirality in the heterochiral ICs prevents intramolecular ligand exchanges* in ICs to form the heterochiral capsules.
(Sadly, this doesn't bode well for evolutionistic)
The correction of the chirality in the heterochiral ICs (chiral self-sorting) *takes place very slowly* to finally lead to the homochiral capsules. (Stable conditions would have to be established with nothing interfering such as weather change, temperature changes (night / freezing temperatures - day blistering heat etc). The reason why the chiral self-sorting took place in the late stage of the self-assembly (after the formation of the heterochiral ICs)
*would be due to the relatively high flexibility* of the CTV-based ligand.
Where did such flexibility in life come from. Disorderly chaos doesn't permit flexibility and cooperation. In a lab the slightest environment flux changes a magnitude of variables.
It's everything Josdamale. Like putting 100,000 left hands in 100,000 right hand gloves
@@abashedsanctimony154 From the video I understand the concept of Homochirality and the difficulty in producing such isomers, with regard to efficiency and yield (which are excellent points), but the importance of Homochirality is not discussed in relation to abiogenesis and biology.
That may require a different video.
@@abashedsanctimony154 Interesting points you made, but which homochiral isomers are involved in cells, and how can these isomers be produced?
What about Donna Blackmond's work?
Dr. Tour covers this in detail.
Life can't come from non life & enegy can't be detroyed or created. (law of conservation)
This is misrepresentation. The origin of life doesnt require energy to be creater or destroyed.
@@patldennis
You believe that? Wow!
@@ifollowtheantichristandthe9218 _"The origin of life doesnt require energy to be creater or destroyed."_ That's pretty vague and generalised. Are you saying that abiogenesis doesn't require energy for the creation of life from amino acids, proteins and then cells? Even OoL proponents all claim that lightning (i.e. energy) was required as part of this process at some point. Or are you referring to the Big Bang and the creation of the universe? What is your frame of reference?
@@patldennis is that so ? i'm sure you will promptly show us all the chemical synthesis pathway instructions to illustrate your claim ? tik tok ..
@@ifollowtheantichristandthe9218 _"The origin of life doesnt require energy"_ Just a near impossible probability of 1 in 10^164 for a simple protein to form by chance which is 10 times longer than the universe has already existed in seconds!"_
Let the complete, utter, total, embarrassing, thrashing of professor Dave continue....I hope he has someone in his corner that can throw in the towel....
🤣😂
😅🤣😂.... Made my morning 🌄
Apollo Creed that dude... he should have picked up his iPhone and sent a message saying he was going to do a hit piece to the subject before he did it.
"If he dies he dies"
@@Joshthetruthseeker What is the worst that could happen.
Like star trek engineer Mr Professor.. keep on
During a 2015 televised panel discussion, Dr. Richard Dawkins (One of the World's Top Darwinian Evolutionary Scientists) admitted, “The Origin of Life is something we don't know anything about. And we want to know something about it. And I would love to know how life actually got started.” (Source: Real Time with Bill Maher, Overtime, October 2, 2015, HBO)
Nature does not need to start homochiral, it is just more efficient with macromolecules in a limited space that is the cell. As soon as a 3d (chiral) catalytic (production) site (in a ribozyme or enzyme) is evolved, THEN homochirality becomes the norm and peace-of-cake chemistry.
Show non homochiral life form I’ll wait…..
James is giving us a Tour of abiogenesis.
@@settledown444 *>>> WARNING: PROFESSOR DAVE FANBOY ALERT!
@@Locutus.Borg. it's so obvious.
He is like a star struck child
@@settledown444 I do find it hilarious that you would take the word of someone that doesn't even have a masters in chemistry over that of a professional chemist that worked for more than 30 years on synthetic organic chemistry and is one of the most highly cited scientists in his field of expertise. Have fun living by that standard.
@@settledown444 you say that because he has a PhD in his field and is highly recognized as an authority that he cannot be used in this case why?
If anyone in your opposition were citing people without credentials you would likely be calling them out and saying that you cannot trust this individual.
Here we are showing that the man James Tour has a plethora of credentials specifically in this field of expertise and he is breaking the information down for the laymen which you apparently have a problem with.
You can call that a fallacy but you have not posted a single thing that refutes his points in any of his lectures. I ask that you show your evidence that Dr Tour has misled people otherwise you are just a liar and do not care about seeking the truth whatsoever. God bless you and my He lead you into all truth.
@@settledown444 you can make the claim that Tour is not an "authority" on Origin of Life research, however he has already questioned to no avail plenty of the researchers in OoL and even debated Lee Cronin on the speculation surrounding the research and you will have to show how he is wrong in his assertions regarding origin of life research scientifically instead of with "he is not an authority" which is a counter fallacy.
Lee Cronin admitted that in order to create life we would need to change the definition of life to match something other than what we see in biological systems today. Redefining life in order to make it is another way of making this an unfalsifiable theory and with no way of resolving it in the near future.
This semantics game that you folks love to play will inevitably ruin the entirety of science and corrupt the very foundation that allows us to do science in the first place. Every single theory is scrutinized and unfortunately for you the theory of Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis are being exposed daily as pseudoscience and vain philosophy that is unable to be established with anything more than conjecture.
Your speculation of what Tour has said is also extremely lacking in substance. Tour is very concise in his lectures and thoroughly explains his terms and why he is having problems with what the Origin of life researchers claim happened. I feel sorry for you that you cannot understand this.
Hey Dr Tour, I see you are premiering these in the evenings US time. I've heard videos do best in the mornings US time since people are trying to distract themselves from work. Monday mornings seem to be a big day too.
I wish professor dave would have chosen to debate his stance.
Forty years ago they said that they will able to make a cell from scratch in 30 yrs. Forty years has passed by still they do not know how to make a cell.
I did not want to waste the time waiting the answer from scientist, so I asked God. God are you there? And who are you? Praise God, He answered me.
If the Lord answered you that is fantastic. For others who received no answer consider the following. God knows your heart. Ask the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to show Himself to you. What is the condition of your heart towards God? He gave you a standard by which He would respond to anyone who ask with the right passion. Does your heart meet His standard? If not, don’t expect anything.
@@markoconnell804 Mark, Adi's comment was clear, but I don't get what you are saying can you clarify?
@@patrickedgington5827 I doctored it up. Hope this clarifies it better.
@@markoconnell804 No sorry, I’m afraid I am still not that clear. In the comment Adi made he pointed out he asked God and received and answer. I would say this is a natural thing for those claiming faith …. that while many may believe, Faith is a gift from the Father we received when we hear His voice. Is it that you are pointing toward?
No answer is a answer. He didn't answer me untill I would not get discouraged about non answers. It's His world, His will, His way not mine or man's. If you don't like it then you can keep trying to reach him. Don't give up, don't give in. Salvation is the most important thing to all humans. I'm sure one of you Atheist will comment so I will respond now. I love you for the human you are and pray God reaches your heart.
During an interview with Ben Stein, when asked about the origin of life (OoL), Dr. Richard Dawkins admitted that "we don't know [how life on earth started]." (Source: 'Expelled' DocuFilm, Dr. Richard Dawkins, One of World’s Top Darwinian Evolutionary Scientists, 2008).
"the more science I learn, the more God I see" einstein, I think
Einstein never said that!
“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” Max Plank (the Father of Quantum Physics) ... It is curious how Max Plank's conclusions were so revolutionary in the field of science / physics (i.e. the immaterial (non-material) reality of nature and "the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind" as the ultimate force behind the fabric of reality). Yet, when microbiologists. biologists, geneticists, biochemists, other scientists, etc. come to the same conclusion (i.e. Intelligence/consciousness/mind is an integral and fundamental force behind the initial introduction and subsequent propagation of biological systems), they are rebuffed as being "unscientific".
Chirality means facing the right way to meet the touchpoints. They connect right. As explained here.
The fact remains that abiogenesis has not met the requirements of the scientific method "process" and is therefore still considered a "hypothesis" by the scientific community. Biogenesis has already passed the process of the scientific method countless times. Abiogenesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times. Pseudoscience is “a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.” By definition, Abiogenesis is classified as “Pseudoscience”.
That was rough! Less than 1% yield, and of that at best 22% homochiral?
Yeah that was the hardest hitting information in this video i believe. Good luck getting homochirality out of that @Professor Dave. Its hard enough to get any of these to form in the first place haha.
And remain... we do 👍