Love and respect the works of both Dr Tour and Dr Meyer.They are men of integrity, depth of knowledge, and insight. Pursuing truth and pushing the boundaries of scientific inquiry. I hope more people discover their works.
Meyer is a politically motivated conman. The Discovery Institute is openly a propaganda mouth piece created by the evangelical far-right to force their religion back into our lives. Just look up the Wedge Document they made at their founding. These people are malicious actors.
Yes we are little people...but we are made in the image of the Big God who unlike all of His other creation...breathed into us the breath of life and we became a living eternal soul.
Humans created a very big god, a metaphorical construct for a higher authority (the laws of the universe) and a human collective conscience. We mirror this god in our actions. That we perceive this god as a person, an intelligent mind, is anthropomorphism (similar to animism), an illusion that humans have always used to make the incomprehensible easier to understand. We arose from "the dust of the ground" (as the bible says, and abiogenesis research assumes), and for this to happen it only required the laws of the universe (god) and lots of time. Despite those who scoff like Tour and Meyer, we will continue to use science to seek the truth.
@@jinnantonix4570 Please explain how of some 2500 prophesies in the scriptures, written over thousands of years, some 2000 of them have come about exactly as foretold. Some 400 of them were about Jesus the Christ. The probability of this happening is nil. The Scriptures are the supernatural word of God given to a lost and dying world. Jesus said those that deny me before man...I will deny before the Father.
@@alantasman8273these are the reasons to doubt the biblical prophesies: Firstly, biblical prophecies were most likely written after the events they purportedly predict. The prophecies were crafted to appear predictive but were actually written retrospectively to fit events that had already occurred. This perspective suggests that biblical authors may have tailored their accounts to bolster religious beliefs or political agendas. Biblical prophecies may be interpreted symbolically or allegorically rather than as literal predictions of future events. Mmany prophecies are poetic or metaphorical expressions of theological concepts rather than precise forecasts of specific historical occurrences. Prophecies in the Bible have multiple potential fulfillments, making it difficult to determine whether a prophecy has genuinely come to pass. Additionally, interpretations of fulfillment may vary depending on one's religious or theological beliefs. The reliability in the interpretation of certain biblical texts or passages is questionable, including those containing prophecies, due to discrepancies among manuscripts or evidence of editing and redaction over time. Compare biblical prophecies with prophecies found in other religious texts or traditions - similar themes or motifs appear in various religious contexts, suggesting that prophecies are a common feature of human culture rather than evidence of divine revelation. Finally, the possibility of supernatural intervention or divine communication is nil. Consequently, biblical prophecies are mythological or legendary narratives rather than genuine predictions inspired by a higher power. Considering all this, the bible is a very unreliable proof of a supernatural god. If you are interested in a scholarly interpretation of biblical prophesies, Bart Ehrman is a good online source.
@@praxitelispraxitelous7061 Michael Behe has been on the list even before Stephen Meyer and James Tour :) Thank you for the suggestion anyway, and if I may reciprocate, I also recommend listening to John Lennox, Jonathan Wells, and William Lane Craig, although I suspect you probably already know them.
@@janusz108 I hope though you are listening to both sides of the debate. I listen to all the people in your list but I also listen to debator Matt Dalhunty, guests at podcasters Lex Fteidman and Alex O'conner,.debator Gutsick. This gives nuances. Not all questions by creationists have been answered successfully. Creationists themselves show this by their ambiguity. For example, Meyer says he is an old earth creationists while others are young earth. Doesnt that hint at a problem?
You guys are the BEST. Thank you for your perseverance and willingness to take the hits for the Truth and all of us. Courageous and admirable men to be looked up to.
Amen and I pray for these men also Father and I pray in Jesus name your only begotten son who you gave for our sake that he would bear our sins and give us his Holiness and then you raised him from the dead and gave the people that you would judge the world one day by that man and I hope for people to listen to you and read your word and pray so they will have salvation before it's too late. Father I never needed to understand everything about your creation but some people seem to have to prove but I hope they read John chapter 14 verse 21 and take the deal and I praise you Father God Almighty and Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost amen
@@gracefulsledge2857 The sheep lay down att night knowing they are safe. The wolves and atheists are tormented trying to hammer a square steel girder into a tiny round hole.
@@peterzinya1 Nonsense. You're talking out your ass. Sheep lay down at night far from feeling safe. All you fuckers do is whine about how the end of the works is near and how all the unarmed woke the left are coming to get you.
@@mirandahotspring4019 Yeah, Stephen Meyer is a Discovery Institute hack who was never a real scientist, and Tour stopped being one years ago to become a preacher.
Great work you guys (and Nick Lane with Joanna Xavier) in bringing common sense and down to earth argumentation in Science. This attitude should extend to other branches of Science that should not obey the whims of misguided politicians.
I haven't got a scientific mind, so I cannot follow any of the details and facts, however I can grasp the enormous complexity of the "building processes" of living organisms as you are presenting the issues. I will keep coming back to your channel and click on interviews with either of you, gents - if for nothing else but to see how ignorant I am! Thank you for all your work.... yes, a conversation with someone like Jordan Peterson could give you more "lay" audience!
These speakers and this channel is dedicated to just that: keeping you ignorant by selling you a comfortable lie. A fantasy. Yes life now is complex because it took 4 billion years of evolution to develop that complexity. They won't tell you that because they want you ignorant.
I encourage you. As you listen more and see their diagrams, you will understand more. Somewhat like scripture. Thousands of words to describe what God did in one breath after He sculpted Adam from the earth.
I was a friend of Bob Shapiro. We were both Professors at NYU, he in Chemistry, me in the Medical School., We co-taught a course in the School of Journalism on molecular biology and DNA science,, so that science journalism students would know enough about the field to be able to write about it. We used to have lunch together after the class, and I mostly listened to Bob talk about the instability of cytosine, and the politics of academic science. He was a wonderful teacher and a wonderful man, and his work on origin of life was inspiring to me (and so many others). I was thrilled to hear Steve mention him. I think Bob is fully aware of the work both of you are doing, and is smiling down on us. He was not a believer, but I think he got a special pass from the Almighty to allow him to see his legacy in action.
Robert Shapiro started the 3rd Way of Evolution website because Neo-Darwinism wasn't getting it done. I took a Summer course with Lynn Margulis at Amhurst after she invited me. Met her at UCLA at her lecture where she trashed Natural Selection, edit; first night hall was 1/4 full, rest of week standing room only. I intrigued her with my engineering background and my view that Life had to be engineered. She of course had her Gaia Hypothesis even back then, 1979. My company gave me a paid Sabbatical to go. Did you ever meet Lynn?
I thought it was interesting how Lee Cronin at the table made a point of saying: "I'm a materialist"; in preface to his views on science / origin of life, etc. My question to any materialist is: What informs you of your materialism?? There is certainly nothing in the material world saying: "we are all there is - there's nothing else!" It seems to be that materialism is therefore self-refuting...🤷🏽♂️
Is this what passes as philosophy here? We can't prove a negative. Until you show that there's more that exists beyond the material - and you clearly cannot show that - then it literally is all we know exists.
If you have evidence of something else feel free to present it to the scientific community. Until then there is no logical reason to believe something else exists.
@@Reclaimer77 Near Death Experience research claims evidence for unnatural events such as people 'leaving their body' during surgery and witnessing things in other rooms that occurred during the time they were incapacitated.
@@Reclaimer77 at what point after a century of trying to force the material existence to create the material existence, do we figure out that we have the wrong foundation. True science leads us where the evidence illuminates. The extreme symbiotic relationships between material existence is evidence that and intelligence outside the material existence is responsible. If I see patterns of code in the sand, even though I don’t know the symbols or the meaning, the only explanation is that intelligence outside of the sand, and the waves were responsible . That is evidence that demands a verdict. Likewise, the complexity of the fine, tuned universe, demands a fine tuner. The complexity of chemicals organizing under the laws of the universe, demands a chemist. The complexity of design that demands symbiotic relationships demands an intelligent designer . Reject the evidence, that is your right. But do not reject that the evidence is evidence for a supernatural intelligence. God’s best on our quest for absolute truth
@@crimsonking5961 the evidence that is produced and conveyed by these two gentlemen is rejected without discussion or contemplation because it does not fit the man-made definition of science. It was easy to define out intelligent design, when the best and brightest thought that the cell was a gelatin, substance housed in a simple casing. It is now simple to fabricate fictional stories, keeping the fantasy that men has no one to answer to besides ourselves. “All things are possible through Satan, who deceived us”. God’s best on our quest for absolute truth
No, no one on "the other side" is conceding anything to these two. The offer nothing, they only attack current research because they don't want science to succeed, that would be too much of a blow to their fragile egos. All they can do is cry god did it.
The fact that DNA / genes (biological coded information) exists at all shows that a Consciousness / Intelligence / Mind is involved in the initial introduction and subsequent propagation of living systems. Undirected random material natural processes have never been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing Functional / Coded / Digital information such as that required for biological systems, even at the most primitive levels of biological life.
"Undirected random material natural processes have never been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing Functional / Coded / Digital information" You guys repeat this lie all the time, but it's still a lie. It has been observed, period. Educate yourself about the research you are claiming to be an expert in. In 2021 the University of Tokyo created DNA using pre-biotic materials. That RNA then self-replicated, self-diversified, and developed complexity (evolution) all on it's own. Yes (gasp) it added "information" to itself without a "mind" doing it. I should have thought once we found amino-acids in meteorites that maybe some of you would get a clue how all this works. How it's not a magical god doing it all. How it's not as complex as Creationists pretend it is. Life is simply chemistry, that's all. There isn't "coded information" in DNA either, it's just chemical reactions assembled by physics. "Information" isn't a physical object!!! DNA is a structure of physical objects arranged by geometry and physics. The "code" is just what we made up by naming those proteins. Stephen Myer has made millions convincing idiots life is a computer program, but that's just not so.
@@maylingng4107 I completely agree, or at best it's just a string of assertions for which the evidence in rebuttal is extensive and overwhelming. It's a favourite technique of James Tour to assert, falsely, that there is no evidence for x, y and z, or assert that published research does not say what it very clearly says, or to misquote persistently the public statements of scientists, even after he has been corrected; or to engage in angry _ad hominem_ tirades against individuals and fields of research whose interests he dislikes, and he often stoops to insults. Which is unfortunately a very bad role model to set for his supporters, many of whom are not scientificalky literate or even well disposed to science, and consequently are biddable, and prone to mirror the same faults he exhibits. They have a predetermined destination that they want to arrive at by 'scientific' means, but they ignore or try to ridicule any science that is inconsistent with their goals, while manufacturing more convenient theories for which they do not have evidence. Many of them do not know any better, but James Tour does, or at least should. I find him to be extremely dishonest, psychologically devious and manipulativeo. It's depressing to read so many sycophantic and / or misleading comments in support of him.
Well, that's one way of looking at it. So tell us, why don't you believe in all the other gods humans have invented to explain everything they don't understand? When you manage to explain that, you'll understand why atheists don't believe in yours, either.
What a pleasure to see these towering minds interacting and indeed agreeing concerning the utter complexity of the most simple life form, and also the more complex body plans, thereby showing that no natural explanation for the origin of life is credible. My PhD and practical experience in animal genetics and breeding is consistent with their obvious conclusion that life is the product of an incredibly intelligent mind! Well dooe. I hope that many will sit up and abandon their fantasies which have no real scientific backing.
well-known bio-chemist from Germany told me that even a computing power of several quadrillions operations per second are by far (!!!) not sufficient to decipher the riddle of life.......
So tell us, if life "must" have been the product of an even more complex mind, then what was that mind a product of? After all, a creator is generally more complex than its creation. So if complexity requires a creator, what created the creator? How many levels down do you people need to go?
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 The obvious counter argument being "how did something come from nothing?". The point is that abiogenesis is wildly implausible, if not outright obviously false.
Brilliant discussion. Thank you for bringing both of your decades of study to bear on the subject. One can hear that Prof. Tour, as a true scientist, has no time for so called "fluff". Tour has about 650 research publications and over 200 patents, with an H-index > 170 with total citations over 130,000 (as of November 2023).
@@marcleysens7716 He insisted his name be added to one paper on the strength of a brief hallway discussion about it. Try Googling "the honesty of James Tour"
Regarding OoL research, virtually everything that the OoL scientists appear to be doing is Investigator Interference (i.e. use of Mind/Conscious/Intelligence); then claiming Methodological Naturalism (i.e. non-use of Mind/Conscious/Intelligence). And even with all of the Investigator Interference, the Ool Scientists have still been unable to demonstrate abiogenesis.
@@crimsonking5961 ask them, not me :) for me a 100% valid proof would be to start with the conditions of the early Earth and let them work without any intervention to produce a living organism; anything less than that can only give a lesser or bigger level of confidence that life could originate out of matter alone; splitting the whole process in a few steps for example and working them separately would give a pretty high confidence; but obviously it doesn't seem we are anywhere close
@@bogdanpopescu1401 We don't know all the conditions of an early earth or how long life took to arise. It could have been a thousand years. The best we can do right now is see if its possible for components of proto cells to form naturally.
Great work, guys. Just like to ask a couple of questions. 1) Could either of you talk to Sir Roger Penrose about any of the arguments concerning God and physcis? 2) Could either of you perhaps be interviewed by Jordan Peterson? 3) Because you see mechanisms in cells -- gears and integrated circuits -- could that be because we are already familiar with that technology and could spot it. However, there could be technology that we can't see because we have not invented or discovered it yet. Seeing is a condition of recognizing what we are familiar with. It is based on the past history of technology. Thanks for the great work you do!
Thank you Stephen and James for going into the depth of this subject. One idea that I have, this is a simplistic view. In the manufacturing industry we have a problem. We define the problem, as best we can. Now we start to solve the problem putting together the necessary pieces and parts to solve the problem. Now we need to test our solution. The solution may work for the most part but usually not the first iteration. It comes back to what you are talking about. Intelligent design. For us compared to what you are talking about is a very very simple design.
In design you have a goal. There's no goal in evolution other than to survive, and even then it's gets it wrong. More species have gone extinct than are alive today by far. Intelligent Design is just Creationism with the magic removed. It doesn't answer any questions like the how, or the why. Because the secret answer is "God".
got it, Dr Urey was my Organic Chem teacher. He tried not to be embarrassed. The absence of proof is not the proof of absence. Still, the harder we look, the more designed, life seems to be. Of course the Big Bang blew up this year too. Jumping to fictional archetypes, no matter how lofty in its magnificence, is not a logical conclusion, its Fluff. Very exciting. I'm rooting for God.
The problem for -creationists- cdesign proponentsists is that to be taken seriously, they need to show their god exists, and document the magical incantations it uses to bring about universes and life out of nothing. That would indeed be a sight to see!
We know He exists. We do not try to explain away this evidence. But, what should be more understood, is no one has shown that it all could have occurred in some other way.@@Sparrow-hawk-666
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 I would be very careful using the word prove. The question of God isn't a scientific one, which deals with some proofs, but a philosophical one, usually dealing with evidence not proof.
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 I don't think it's mandatory for creationists to show God exists (in the sense of producing him so that we can see, touch him directly). We also can't directly do that for dark matter or dark energy. In fact these things are undetectable by any of our tools. But we accept their existence. Because we see their effects. Similarly creationists infer God by his effects on nature
Riveting conversation! Absolutely loved this video. The remaining problem is getting a couple of important people in my life, who have been hoodwinked by evolution/atheism, to actually sit and watch this. THAT is a real challenge. The evolution advocates have been very successful in dissuading people from listening to any scientist who happens to believe in God, notwithstanding that you guys are using real science to disprove evolutionary dogma. Peace and blessings. Tom
The Bible has a term for those that refuse even consider Biblical worldview...it calls them willingly ignorant. 2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
The biggest irony of the Ool research is that, even if the scientists would succeed in creating a cell, it would show that it was created by means of their own intelligence, thus proving intelligent design. Furthermore, we could then move the goalpost further for them and say, ok you created life by using already preexisting matter, now try to create matter itself (Oom reasearch).
But immediately it would show that a supernatural explanation for life is not necessary. Nevertheless, once life has been recreated, research can move to see what conditions arise naturally for it to do so.
Thank you Dr. James Tour you are an amazing scientist, teacher, and human being and a great brother in Christ. My God always bless you and keep you safe 🙏🏼❤️ 💖💕
"Selection" as a material mechanism has never been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to cause atoms and molecules to form into DNA / RNA.
@Reclaimer77 KJV And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Yes, He was observed. Are there any other questions I can assist you with?
Evolution and OOL are a doctrines that has to be accepted by FAITH. Problem is, these theories as no foundations and proofs. They need billions of years to support thier doctines and claim it is observable. Thank you Dr Tour & Dr Meyer. God bless you richly. May your children follow your footsteps.
That's your religion, dear, I think you're getting confused between religion and science. Science has objective evidence in its favour. Your religion has nothing at all.
@@sliglusamelius8578 Tour has no real arguments on the Origin of Life, all his reasoning is from his religion. He is a messianic Jew (Jews for Jesus) a small cult under one half million members. He is also a propagandist for the Discovery Institute, and anti-science fundamentalist cult. My posts are not deleted, in spite of my criticisms.
Dave Farina made Tour look like an absolute idiot in their last debate. It's not a very difficult task. All tour can do is attack current science on OoL with misleading intellectually dishonest statements and quote mine from published papers, deliberately misinterpreting them. He can offer nothing in return, only god did it.
@@mirandahotspring4019 You can't really believe that. Young Dave pointed to the TITLE of a paper and exclaimed _"It's right there"!_ That is, he _believed_ the title. He thought the title was all that he needed to read. Meanwhile, Dr.Tour was discussing the _content_ of that paper in detail and even speaking knowledgeably about the supporting materials. Poor Dave.
@@KenJackson_US Oh come on! Tour got owned! He lied and was exposed for it. After the Tour/Farina debate Lee Cronin was the only one who responded to tell him how ridiculous he is. That prompted James and the DI to convince Lee to come to Harvard for a "round table discussion", and it was absolutely hilarious. It was just several scientists and philosophers dumping all over James for hours, and watching him squirm. They made a complete fool of him.
The term "Assembly Theory" is a misnomer. Just like Abiogenesis, "Assembly Theory" is Not a Scientific Theory: it is merely a hypothesis (i.e. educated or hypothetical Guess). *_“Assembly theory is a hypothesis that characterizes object complexity. When applied to molecule complexity, its authors claim it to be the first technique that is experimentally verifiable, unlike other molecular complexity algorithms that lack experimental measure … The theory was developed as a means to detect evidence of extraterrestrial life from data gathered by astronomical observations or probes.”_* (Source:Wikipedia, Assembly Theory) Scientists at the highest levels of academia are (whether negligently or intentionally deceptively to mislead in forwarding a particular ideological / worldview agenda) tossing around the words "hypothesis" and "theory" as interchangeable synonyms. This has caused much confusion within the general population regarding many important scientific subjects such as Cosmology, Origin of Life (OoL), Macro-evolution, Micro-evolution, etc. which have profound social, political, and religious implications.
Hey, actually, Jesus Christ did scientific practices when he was on Earth which seemed like magic to the uneducated natural man. Once we get to heaven, we can all understand and replicate the exact Scientific practices that Jesus Christ did on Earth with our new spiritual bodies.
Thank you both. Cronin’s equation can be a helpful metric at best and it doesn’t describe any principle like the laws of thermodynamics, with which you can design experiments and make predictions.
Well, you can certainly take issue with Cronin's assembly theory and its usefulness. I don't know enough about it to comment on that. Maybe it's totally whacked and useless. But let's say Cronin's particular hypothesis is wrong. Doesn't somehow prove abiogenesis wasn't a reality. The point is, at the beginning of the universe, so far as cosmologists are able to tell, life was impossible anywhere, because the energy density and fluctuation was just too high for stable molecules to exist. Then at some point, it cooled down sufficiently to allow life to appear. The question is whether it appeared naturally, or was zapped into existence by... a god! I prefer thinking it appeared naturally, because there's no evidence for a god zapping life into existence, and there never has been. Just because we don't know what natural mechanisms caused it, yet, doesn't mean the god notion wins by default.
There are currently no known examples, in nature or science, where one life form will convert to a different life form (i.e. different body plan) by change in the DNA. Current understanding in the field of genetics seems to indicate that varying body plans (for example, the difference between an octopus and praying mantis) do not reside within the DNA. Genes within the DNA of a particular organism code for the different proteins required to build and allow that particular organism to function but has not been shown to determine that particular organism's primary biological architectural body plan. Therefore, no amount of random mutation of DNA will produce a new organism with a different body plan from the original.
And no scientists ever in the history of history, has said a life form "converted" to another life form. Are you people all on drugs or something??? Also what the hell is a "body plan"? That sounds like something Stephen Myer and his group of Creationist misfits made up. Pretending life is a set of blueprints and schematics from a computer and other stupid analogies.
Dr. Meyer states his point in a way that is not offensive. Dr. Tour wants "facts" and not just some nice stories that have a scientific buzz. He wants to cut straight to chase. While I like to listen to Dr. Meyer's stories, I want to see "the facts". I want to thank both for their contributions to the understanding of science.
Origin of Life scientists realized that in order to maintain good standing, and funding they must continue with the lies. They may have started out with good intentions but then became addicted to their lifestyle
That's not actually the case. The research is legitimate and useful even if the end result isn't Abiogenesis. The general public does not care about the subject so there's no actual benefit to the hype. Journalists often engage in wishful thinking or otherwise don't understand the problem.
99% of Science is failure. OOL research is a monumentally daunting task. Trying to recreate the conditions for life to occur is nigh impossible. Not an easy task by any means. Takes years of work to validate. More like they dug themselves into a hole for decades and can no longer escape.
@@sentientflower7891 The commenter made a claim about thousands of legitimate scientists lying. A claim like that requires evidence, not just assertion.
@@codonmatrix4510 Nothing? you cannot read? Hundreds of lies, willful deceit by the 2 clowns. They preach biblical creation, reject the Fact and Science of Evolution, and want to replace science in the public schools with biblical creationism. Have you got past the 10th grade? Sounds like, you did not.
@@maylingng4107 Exactly WHAT "facts" do you have in regards to abiogenesis? You have proof? If so, show us how it's done. Reality is, we all know your "facts" are nothing but your hopes and wishes. What magical unguided process created life? Any idea? In fact, show me any unguided process that can create the complex integrated systems involved in the simplest of life. Go ahead. Explain how random molecules became enantiomericly pure and self organized to create long chain proteins. Go ahead, and if you can do that, then explain where the encoded information came from. However, we both know you won't do that because you CAN'T, but you still believe it. Believe what you want, being willfully ignorant is your choice, might as well enjoy it I guess.
@@codonmatrix4510 Abiogenesis is in the hypothesis stage. More research is still needed to confirm a scientific theory. Synthetic life has already been manufactured in the laboratory. Or are you ignorant of the science? I can explain the process of abiogenesis, but you would not understand any of it, and it would take more than 100 pages. So instead of that, just this once, I am going to very briefly summarize where the current research stands. *Before that summary, I am going to say that you do not have any alternative, or s shred of evidence for any other process, especially not for a creation by our god. Here is the challenge only once: "provide evidence that what I summarize is incorrect and your god creating life is correct!" (I expect that you will not be able to answer and your lying mouth will be shut hereafter* *The Origin of Life* While we have not defined completely the process by which the first life form was assembled, it does not mean that we are clueless about the origins. We do have many experiments that have revealed some of the internal processes. More evidence is needed, for sure, since we are at the hypothesis stage only. Here is one of the most rational hypothesis from Dr. Jack Szostak, (a Nobel prize laurate and professor at Harvard Medical School). Since man has walked on earth, he had an incessant curiosity to understand his beginnings. Not being able to find a rational answer, he invented a bunch of creation stories, all of which have one thing in common: because no human could conceive a natural process, he had to resort to a supernatural explanation. His understanding was further confused by his observed experience that “only life can ‘beget’ life. First and foremost, let us differentiate the beginning of life (abiogenesis) from evolution (evolving of species). One does not have anything to do with the other: the first explains generation of life from ‘non-life’, while the latter explains how species evolve, once there is life. Second, let us understand that a scientific theory is the explanation of a specific set of facts. Claiming that evolution does not work because it does not explain the beginning of life, is like claiming that an umbrella does not work, because it does not predict when it is going to rain. Here are the creationist arguments against abiogenesis. 1. Spontaneous generation of complex organisms is impossible. Spontaneous generation was tested and proven false by Francesco Rei (1668), by Lazzaro Spallanzini (1765) and Louis Pasteur (1859) 2. The probability of s single cell forming is 1 in 10 raised to the 50,000 power. Let us disregard the fact this is a totally made up number it shows that early life could not have been as complex as modern cells. 3. (Supplied by the genius of Ben Stein). “Life was created by lighting striking a mud puddle; and that is just silly. Parenthetically, Stein is correct in that there is one book which claims that life was formed from dirt --- The bible. 4. The Miller-Urey experiment did not create life. This is like claiming that flight to the moon is impossible, because the Wright brothers didn’t. *So let us examine what science can tell us about the origins of life* We know from experiments in the fields of Astronomy, Chemistry, Geology and Meteorology that the early pre-biotic earth was filled with organic molecules, the building blocks of life. We also know that organic molecules are very common in space. We also know that early life has been extremely simple…meaning no complex protein machinery in place. Modern cells separate themselves from the environment with a lipid bilayer. The problem with modern phospholipids is that they are too good at what they do. They form a nearly impenetrable barrier. Modern cells must use proteins to move molecules across their surface. But life did not have to start with modern chemicals! The pre-biotic environment contain many simple fatty acids. Under the range of pH they spontaneously form stable vesicles and they are permeable to small organic molecules (no complex proteins are required to get stuff in). When a vesicle encounters free fatty acids in solution, it will incorporate them (eating and growth are driven purely by thermodynamics). When a vesicle grows, it adopts a tubular branched shape (because the surface are grows faster than volume), which is easily divided by natural forces (waves, currents, rocks, etc.). When this division takes place, none of the contents of the vesicle are lost. *So what about the genetic material?* Modern nucleotides are too stable and require complex machinery to replicate. But the pre-biotic environment contained hundreds of different types of nucleotides, not just DNA and RNA. All it took is 1 to self polymerize (recent experiments have shown that some of these are capable of self polymerization, such as Phosphoramidate DNA). Monomers will base pair with a single stranded template and self ligate. They can also polymerize in solution and spontaneously form new templates, or extend existing templates. *No special sequences are required, it is just chemistry! But how does this become life?* Fatty acids are permeable to nucleotide monomers but not polymers. Once spontaneous polymerization occurs within the vesicle, the polymer is trapped. Floating through the ocean the polymer containing vesicles will encounter convection currents, such as set up by hydrothermal vents. The high temperatures will separate the polymer strands and increase the membrane’s permeability to monomers. Once the temperature cools, spontaneous polymerization can occur (and the cycle repeats). The polymer, due to surrounding ions, will increase the osmotic pressure within the vesicle, stretching its membrane. A vesicle with more polymer through simple thermodynamics will “steal” lipids from a vesicle with less polymer. They essentially, “eat” each other. The vesicle that contains a polymer that can replicate faster, will grow and divide faster, and will eventually dominate the population, and now EVOLUTION can begin.
@@maylingng4107 Well since you have it all figured out, why didn't you take Tour's challenge? You would be famous if you did. I understand you believe what you say, the problem however is you CAN'T do it. The chemistry doesn't work, ESPECIALLY in an unguided format. You see, your main problem is that you are stuck with having to prove it happened WITHOUT intelligent guidance, because it's the only thing that you think will push God out of the picture, which is your REAL goal, not science. You would believe that the first man was a gingerbread man if it allowed you to push out or discredit God. THAT is the truth. You will accept ANY concept whatsoever, as long as it leaves out God, that is your only criteria, everything else, no matter how irrational it is, is viable in your mind.
You know James Tour is hitting the BULLSEYE when no one can demonstrate that he is wrong. Seems the best they have is to call him names. Thank you Dr. Tour for challenging the claims and asking the questions. That's the way it is supposed to work.
@@Sparrow-hawk-666What exactly do you think he has to show? He claims we have not solved the OOL problem. Has OOL been solved to date? If so, who solved it and when. Not so easy is it?
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 He has NEVER claimed it is impossible. His claim that no one has "created" life yet is true. He also says that someday we may solve the question of OOL. Again, has the problem been solved? No, it has not been solved YET. Maybe someday, but NOT yet. That's science.
@@KelliAnnWinkler Wee Jimmie Tour is a young earth creationist. That's why he claims abiogenesis is impossible. He denies it with every breath. He lives and breaths his daffy religion.
Jim constantly talks about how scientists are on his side and agree with his stance on OoL. How come the only people who are willing to come to his channel to talk about it are people associated with the Discovery Institute, a “politically conservative think tank that advocates the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design” according to Wikipedia?
He never suggested that many scientists are on his side. They are not, and he knows it, and doesn't hesitate to admit it. Citing Wikipedia as an authority is kind of silly (no offense). And besides, it isn't about "sides." Science is not politics. If one scientist has the facts ( which Tour DOES), then it makes NO difference how many scientists agree or disagree with him....because even if EVERY scientist disagreed with him that would just mean that every scientist is wrong ! Because facts are facts, not opinions.
@@maylingng4107 Yeah, pretty much. Tour may have once been a reputable scientist, but he left that behind long ago. And the so-called "Discovery Institute" doesn't employ scientists, just preachers wearing white lab coats.
@@maylingng4107 There's no science behind Tour's OOL posturing, and no scientists at the Discovery Institute either - just preachers wearing white coats playing at being scientists.
Thanks! Amen and God bless you abundantly!!! 10:00 Ecclesiastes 1:9 What has been done will be done again, and what has happened will happen again. There is nothing new under the sun.
Didn’t we already have multiple videos talking Lee Cronin and the Harvard discussion? Why does Jim like making so many videos about 1 event? Most UA-camrs make follow-up videos if something new happened in the event that we didn’t see when it first happened. But everything that was discussed here seems to be present in the videos described. What’s the point of even watching if we can just watch the original video and get the same information?
@@samdg1234 Jim Tour is not accepted by the science community; he is regarded as a religious zealot. And Stephen Meyer is an uneducated (in biology) propagandist and mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute. Funny name, is it not: What did this cult DISCOVER? My metric is my knowledge of biology; the knowledge to know that neither Tour nor Meyer know what they are talking about. Neither have any education in the Origin of Life research; they just deny what has been uncovered by the science community for a couple of years by now.
@@maylingng4107 It appears you’ve posted a reply to me and either you or UA-cam deleted it. I’m guessing that it was you. You said, *“Sam dg Jim Tour is not accepted by the science community; he is regarded as a religious zealot”* I’d have been inclined to delete such vacuous nonsense to. The “science community”. What in your propagandistic world is that? Wasn’t it the “science community” that deemed, for a while at least (until it was pointed out what utter tripe it was) that the theory of Covid originating in a lab as a racist conspiracy theory. I guess my Copernicus comment went over your head. It was meant to illustrate that 1) having no one else siding with your theory doesn’t contribute to the veracity of the theory, and 2) religious zealotry counts not a whit against the theory. But you, like all atheist seals here, are just totally out of anything legitimate to bring against what Tour is saying here, and so resort to the last pathetic defense, the ad hominem. I pity you. I think Jim Tour regards himself as a religious zealot. And still you have nothing to say against the science he presents. But you've got company. Neither do any of the 10 top OOL researchers to whom he issued his last challenge. But you are also in the company of Duffus-or Dave. He has the answers to Tour's 5 questions.
Stephen Myer: Only an intelligent mind can create data and complexity, therefore god James Tour: Our intelligent minds can't make a cell which has data and complexity, therefore god. Can someone make this make sense?? The goalpost moving and conflicting fallacies are coming at warp speed here.
Dr. James Tour previously proposed that he would give a newly dead cell with all its parts still in place to abiogenesis scientists to allow them to try and bring it back to life...he gave then a kickstart with everything in place....but they would not take him up on the offer....I wonder why?
@@alantasman8273 Because reviving a dead jalopy tells us nothing about how abiogenesis happened. Even you creos are forced to admit that once upon a time, the earth was lifeless. Then life appeared. What is your scientifically testable theory? And stop spamming crap.
“For the ‘wisdom of this world’ is Foolishness with GOD. For it is Written; HE TAKETH THE WISE IN THEIR OWN CRAFTINESS.” ~ Apostle Paul ~ (1 Cor 3:19) ~~~ “HE that sits in the Heavens shall LAUGH; The LORD Shall have them in ‘Derision’.” (Psalm 2:4) ~~~ :)
@@sentientflower7891 I've no idea. That's why it's the subject of *RESEARCH!* You know, research is what scientists do when they don't have an answer to a question they are interested in. They don't just read the book of genesis and think that provides any answer, the way Tour does.
Oh dear. Even Jame's colleagues are coming out about his ranpant plagiarism and false statements. That's not good. Looks like Lee didn't actually do anything wrong. James's own 'friends' are outing him as a complete fraud, with evidence of all the papers he's had to retract due to fraud and plagiarism. I'm starting to think he's not as honest as he attempts to portray himself as.
Lee Cronin ain't the enemy. Stop treating him as an enemy. None of the scientists engaged in origin of life research are enemies nor is there any sort of conspiracy on their part to sell Abiogenesis to the public since the general public and the educated public and professional public don't even know that Abiogenesis is a subject matter much less a matter of dispute.
@@sentientflower7891 This is what the Christian nationalists do. Cry about being oppressed while organizing hate campaigns against one honest researcher who had the unfortunate luck of getting into this psychopaths crosshairs, this 'Dr' James Tour.
@@BenjaminSteber Why? What has what people believe or don't believe got to do with what they claim to know or whether they pretend to be what they are not?
A verdade é libertadora, as estruturas começam a tremer, os terremotos geram tsunamis, a chuva está a caminho, the stablishment is shaking, every tongue shall confess you e every knees shal bend to the Creator of heavens and earth, from Brazil,
Amazing! Meyer, a members of the Discovery Institute is discussing with Tour their mutual ignorance about the origin of life research. Neither of them has any education on this area. Tour and Meyer have never published a single peer-reviewed article on this topic. But that does not stop the Discovery Institute preachers in preaching religious nonsense.
I hope you stayed long enough to listen to the entire discussion, May Ling. And why dont you email Dr Tour to have a Zoom session with him to discuss these issues or go on his podcast since you are such a highly educated scientist in this field.
@@xtnese I do not waste time with people who claim that Jesus appeared in the flesh in their bedroom for a conversation, as James Tour does. I am busy in bio-research instead of preaching propaganda, unlike Dr. Tour. I have a serious contempt for the members of the Discovery Institute (Tour is a member) who are on a mission to poison young minds. (P.S. - I have participated in a group discussion in the past with him, a compete waste of time that was).
@@maylingng4107 I appreciate that you take the time out from your busy Bio Research to reply to me. Is it in the area of origin of Life? I'm not a big fan of the Discovery Institute either, as they deny Jesus as the Intelligent Designer behind creation. I'm not sure what role Dr Tour plays there. Im a disciple of the Ken Ham, Answers In Genesis, Young Earth Creationist Christian school of thought. It is evolution that poisons young minds by telling them that they are merely products of time and chance without any purpose. I believe evolutionary ideology has led to the rise in school tragedies , like Columbine, among many others. This rise has been in correlation with the removal of Prayer, Bible reading, the teaching of the Golden Rule , and the Ten Commandments removed from our classrooms in 1963 courtesy of Madalyn Murray O'Hair. This Easter Season I pray that Jesus reveals Himself to you too.
Your being silly. Read Meyer's books and you will see for yourself that he is VERY well-informed on the whole history of Origin of Life research up to the present day. And Tour is literally one of the most brilliant scientists in America today, and uniquely qualified to comment on these topics as both a synthetic organic chemist and a world-renowned nanotechnologist.
@@CarlMCole Meyer very well informed? you mean when he is not lying through his teeth, which is almost never. Meyer has no education in biology and never published a single peer-reviewed article on the Origin of Life, and neither has Tour. Meyer is a charter member of the Discovery Institute, and organization that seeks to replace the teaching of evolution with biblical creation in the public schools. There were more than a dozen court cases about this, Meyer and the DI lost all of them. The most famous was Kitzmiller v. Dover BofE in 2005, where the teaching of Intelligent Design (advocated by Meyer) was totally discredited and Judge Jones (an church going Christian) ruled it to be not science, but religion. Silly? I have a word for your nonsense, which decorum does not allow me to write. You are totally ignorant of the research in this field, where gigantic progress has been and is being made by legitimate scientists, not by religious loons and pretenders. Meyer's book "Signature in the Cell" Where he attacks evolution and argues for "intelligent design" --- to call the book pseudo-science is an understatement, a total dishonest trash is far more appropriate. PS: Meyer and Tour display their "brilliance" by rejecting the fact of evolution. Can you name a single science organization anywhere on the face of the earth that rejects evolution? So much for their brilliance and yours.
17:40 the Phillip Ball book is remarkable in that over 400 pages of extremely intelligent discussion of the cell there is precisely one sentence dedicated to the origin of life, and the problem is mentioned only to dismiss.
The INSTRUCTIONS are built into the creature, by the creator of everything who engineered this. The creator is the only one who has done this to date, with every cell in every organ of every creature. Without the instructions built into every cell, man can not even "MAKE" an amoeba.
It's amusing to see how many credulous believers baulk at evolution, because they can't figure it out, yet are happy to accept a wizard muttering magical incantations and zapping life into existence, out of nothing. Maybe they should consider going back to school to learn the basics of science.
I find it terribly disingenuous of you to create your own idea of what someone else believes. Nobody believes what you suggest except you apparently. I have not seen even one person in the field ever suggest a wizard. If you want to take that approach, then I suggest that your wizard is time, and it didn't even mutter an incantation, it just zapped into life on it's own out of nothing but raw elements. Maybe YOU should go to school, or at least try to think, instead of practicing your version of a parrot that repeats everything someone else tells it. You screech and yowl constantly yet provide not one single shred of evidence, but you have great faith in your fictional narrative that you try so hard to push. In fact, you are so clueless that you don't even realize it, you just keep digging your hole deeper. Well enjoy your failure I guess. You seem to love playing the fool and relish it like a pig in it's own mire. Go ahead, keep wallowing, it's quite amusing.
Stephen Meyer's going to tell you what it is, Stephen Meyer's going to tell you how to live. He's like a gift that he only wants to give.. that's my poem lol.
Each cell's Interactome protein combination space 10^79,000,000,000 . Average human has 37 trillion cells. That's ten to the seventy nine billion to the 37 trillionth power. Each cell has one hundred trillion atoms.
My understanding is that the 10^79,000,000,000 is the interactomes or protein to protein reactions in a microbial yeast cell. However the mammalian cell does not have that type of interactome, but rather ribosomes, these are complex organelle structures, that decode mRNA and build all the functioning proteins. The likelihood of either ultra complex system requisite for cell function evolving by “happy accidents” is still akin to attempting to find a particular nano quantum dot, in a sea of a centillion multiverses.
One of the main problems is the segregation that occurred between philosophy and natural sciences at the turn of the 20th century. The natural sciences are still suffering under the influence of the logical positivists, even though Ayer et al.'s theories have long been discarded.
Maybe there is no lower bound, and non-living subtly merges into living chemistry. Life is just a bounded set of biochemical reactions, after all. It's a complex set now, but it's had billions of years of trial and error to get to this point.
Does Tour or any of his faithful acolytes have any scientific evidence that disproves evolution, or abiogenesis? I know he doesn't understand evolution, he admitted it on his website (in a brief flash of honesty), but he seems to misunderstand the issues investigated by OOL researchers as well. It's not in his bible, and that's the only rule he ever applies.
Sweetie, abiogenesis and OOL is making the claims that they cannot prove. You don’t disprove something that never happened and there is no evidence it did.
@@crackheadbiden3273 There's more evidence for abiogenesis than for your magical wizard, sweetiepie. Your god is a figment of your imagination, and that's the only place it exists in.
@@crackheadbiden3273 Evolution is a FACT, it has been observed in nature and duplicated in the laboratory. Abiogenesis' is in the hypothesis stage. While there is much evidence, still not sufficient to form a scientific theory. Dr. Jack Szostak and his team are close, perhaps a decade of two away understanding the entire process.
When will the majority of scientists overcome their fear of the cancel culture and the deep almost reverent belief of Darwin being a faith based worship entity and say simply that the EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES????
Assertions and accusations are not evidence dude. I can make a video saying that my co worker steals my lunch everyday. That makes it true? No judge will take your confirmation bias as evidence.
No one has seen any of his critics since he challenged them to answere real world quastions so what on earth are you babbling about??????. Lee Cronin showed up once. Didn't answer a single question and proceeded to cry like a child and call Dr tour a meanie! Buhahaha!!! What a joke...
@@jIMwILLIAMS-im7kk LOL I love how you all think people are sitting around waiting for this buffoon James Tour to "issue challenges". And when they ignore the challenge, because they ALL KNOW Tour's point is to advance Creationism, he claims it's a victory. Critics??? Half these people didn't even know or cared who this man was until he started ignorantly calling them frauds. James Tour went to Harvard and got his face kicked in, very politely by REAL scientists who follow evidence. Not "Jesus loves me and said he made me special".
So desperate for having nothing but ad hominem attacks, aren't we? By the way, when will Dave stop using "professor" as a fake degree in his channel's name? So much for "hype", what a hypocrite.
The problem with OOL under materialism is that nature had no idea what biological life would be. OOL researchers know what biological life looks like. All they need do is study themselves, which is a materialistic paradox.
I would be surprised if Cronin’s assembly theory could come up with a decent solution to how the cell’s respiratory complex evolved from functional prior components. Wikipedias page on ATP synthase is totally vague on its evolution section for this complex nano turbine structure. But it is refreshing to see Nick Lane coming half clean in his unravelling paper… Way to go guys… you’re shaking it up!
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 first you assume I have no evidence for what I believe… that I can assure you is complete and utter scientific illiteracy and ignorance on your part. There is a ton of evidence not only for Biblical events like the ancient Israelites in Egypt, Jericho with tumbling walls etc etc… but the Turin Shroud is looking 100% authentic… with the 1988 c-14 data being hidden from the scientific community for over 30yrs… requiring invoking the freedom of information act… and now thoroughly debunked. It is origins of life researchers that appeal to magic, the 21st century version of alchemy, that life can form out of chemicals What scientific proof do you have?
@@luxliquidlumenvideoproduct5425 You claim scientific evidence for the children's fable in the bible? There is none. The Shroud of Turin is a hoax, it was examined by 3 different laboratories (namely Oxford, Tucson, and Zürich). The supervising institution was the British Museum, headed by Michael Tite. Together with the evidence of the gene coding β-globin, contamination between male and female DNA was documented on the Turin Shroud. Although the presence of male was more noticeable than female DNA, these data were considered null and void. The Shroud was manufactured around the 13th century CE. Life has formed from chemicals and an energy source. Are you not made of chemicals? Synthetic life has already been formed in the laboratory.
@@maylingng4107 Oh, you want evidence for the bible? Ok that's easy. 1.) A large delta that juts out into the gulf of Aqaba on the Egyptian side. 2.) Two pillars on opposites sides of the crossing point to commemorate the event of the crossing. 3.) Debris and remains of what seems to be an Egyptian army, wheels, bones, etc spread out on the bottom of the gulf between Nuweiba and the Saudi coast. 4.) The 12 wells at Elim. Still exist today. 5.) The split rock at Horeb. Still exists today. 6.) On the eastern side of the Jebal al lawz range, Copious evidence of a large group of seemingly Egyptian people inhabiting that barren landscape for some time. 7.) Signs of water erosion from lots of water in Horeb by the split rock in a region that has very little if any rain. 8.) A rock pile with Egyptian style petroglyphs where the golden calf most likely was placed. Images of the apis bull and hathor. Still there today. 9.) A crush pen to herd in the sacrificial animals to the altar. Still there today. 10.) Paleo-Hebrew writings carved in rocks all over the area. Still there today. There are lots more things but I'm not going to list them all, just go look and you will find, that is, IF you really want to know, but that is up to you. If you really want the truth, you will go look for yourself.
@@Sparrow-hawk-666Is the meteor alive? Just because you find a few tiny little bricks doesn't mean you can build a tower with it. You are totally CLUELESS. Or maybe you are just willingly ignorant. Hard to tell which. Maybe both.
@@codonmatrix4510 The point that eludes your pointy religious head is that biology is based on molecules that appear naturally, without any magic. You're unable to understand a world that operates without magic, but that's your problem with understanding, not mine.
About 2-3 weeks ago there was a video here encouraging to ask questions to James Tour and Stephen Meyer. Anyone knows if they answered the questions somewhere?
Professor Dave followers have got to be some of the most weak minded unthinking people around. Dave has no PHD and his resume of "accomplishments" looks like that of a degree in basket weaving compared to Dr Tours true accomplishments in advancing science.
@@alantasman8273 James Tour a once brilliant mind, threw his education is the garbage can when he started claiming that Jesus appears in his bedroom for a conversation. He is a member of "Jews for Jesus" and the Discovery Institute --- need to say anymore?
@@alantasman8273 Oh? And what, exactly, has Tour added to the discussion, but weak-minded incredulity: "I can't understand it, so it must be false!" His PhD hasn't added to Tour's ability to understand science, as he just dismisses everything that contradicts his holy book.
@@Sparrow-hawk-666Just do a search on Dr James Tour research, patents and companies he has seeded. There's this thing call the internet and a search engine that might help.
And how would it do that, when nothing else in science has? Tour _et al._ won't even accept assembly theory is valid science! Ultimately a scientific theory is only worth anything if it makes testable predictions that if shown to be false by experiment or other observation, falsify the theory. I don't know off-hand whether assembly theory meets that criterion, or is just a working hypothesis at present, but intelligent design certainly isn't, because it postulates the existence of a being that's inherently unfalsifiable.
Love and respect the works of both Dr Tour and Dr Meyer.They are men of integrity, depth of knowledge, and insight. Pursuing truth and pushing the boundaries of scientific inquiry. I hope more people discover their works.
Disturbing...why don't these guys learn some real science instead of peddling this horsesh*t?!
Meyer is a politically motivated conman. The Discovery Institute is openly a propaganda mouth piece created by the evangelical far-right to force their religion back into our lives. Just look up the Wedge Document they made at their founding.
These people are malicious actors.
We are very little people with a very BIG GOD. Amen.
Yes we are little people...but we are made in the image of the Big God who unlike all of His other creation...breathed into us the breath of life and we became a living eternal soul.
@@alantasman8273 If god's made in your image, or vice versa, whatever, then the universe is definitely doomed, because he's got zero intelligence.
Humans created a very big god, a metaphorical construct for a higher authority (the laws of the universe) and a human collective conscience. We mirror this god in our actions. That we perceive this god as a person, an intelligent mind, is anthropomorphism (similar to animism), an illusion that humans have always used to make the incomprehensible easier to understand. We arose from "the dust of the ground" (as the bible says, and abiogenesis research assumes), and for this to happen it only required the laws of the universe (god) and lots of time. Despite those who scoff like Tour and Meyer, we will continue to use science to seek the truth.
@@jinnantonix4570 Please explain how of some 2500 prophesies in the scriptures, written over thousands of years, some 2000 of them have come about exactly as foretold. Some 400 of them were about Jesus the Christ. The probability of this happening is nil. The Scriptures are the supernatural word of God given to a lost and dying world. Jesus said those that deny me before man...I will deny before the Father.
@@alantasman8273these are the reasons to doubt the biblical prophesies:
Firstly, biblical prophecies were most likely written after the events they purportedly predict. The prophecies were crafted to appear predictive but were actually written retrospectively to fit events that had already occurred. This perspective suggests that biblical authors may have tailored their accounts to bolster religious beliefs or political agendas.
Biblical prophecies may be interpreted symbolically or allegorically rather than as literal predictions of future events. Mmany prophecies are poetic or metaphorical expressions of theological concepts rather than precise forecasts of specific historical occurrences.
Prophecies in the Bible have multiple potential fulfillments, making it difficult to determine whether a prophecy has genuinely come to pass. Additionally, interpretations of fulfillment may vary depending on one's religious or theological beliefs.
The reliability in the interpretation of certain biblical texts or passages is questionable, including those containing prophecies, due to discrepancies among manuscripts or evidence of editing and redaction over time.
Compare biblical prophecies with prophecies found in other religious texts or traditions - similar themes or motifs appear in various religious contexts, suggesting that prophecies are a common feature of human culture rather than evidence of divine revelation.
Finally, the possibility of supernatural intervention or divine communication is nil. Consequently, biblical prophecies are mythological or legendary narratives rather than genuine predictions inspired by a higher power.
Considering all this, the bible is a very unreliable proof of a supernatural god.
If you are interested in a scholarly interpretation of biblical prophesies, Bart Ehrman is a good online source.
It's a pleasure to listen to my two favorite scientists.
Consider adding Michael Behe to the list 😉
@@praxitelispraxitelous7061
Michael Behe has been on the list even before Stephen Meyer and James Tour :)
Thank you for the suggestion anyway, and if I may reciprocate, I also recommend listening to John Lennox, Jonathan Wells, and William Lane Craig, although I suspect you probably already know them.
@@janusz108 I know all of them but thank you anyway. I would not put them in the same category though.
@@janusz108 I hope though you are listening to both sides of the debate. I listen to all the people in your list but I also listen to debator Matt Dalhunty, guests at podcasters Lex Fteidman and Alex O'conner,.debator Gutsick. This gives nuances. Not all questions by creationists have been answered successfully. Creationists themselves show this by their ambiguity. For example, Meyer says he is an old earth creationists while others are young earth. Doesnt that hint at a problem?
@SextusHempiryk Meyer is not a scientist either. He is an irrational propagandist masquerading as being scientific.
Thank you Dr you are doing and saying what others are afraid to do and say God bless🙏🙏🙏
I much prefer the "bad cop" delivery. Don't stop doing it the way you do it 👍
They can call him a "bad cop", but they can't call him a liar.
Yeah, mr Tour, grill those pseudo scientific dr frankenstein wannabes.
I like both, and there is a place for both. But I gotta tell you, I love Dr Tour's direct, no nonsense way of saying things:
"Nobody knows!..."
You guys are the BEST. Thank you for your perseverance and willingness to take the hits for the Truth and all of us. Courageous and admirable men to be looked up to.
Please share the transcript. Thank you. God is AMAZING!
It is there now. In the description, click Show More, scroll to the bottom, and click Show Transcript.
Hello and God bless you all from Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Herzegovina. Great place.
Pozdrav iz Hrvatske 👍
@@sliglusamelius8578 Yes it is
@@eladio_cro_warface Pozdrav. Tako mi je drago što ima još ljudi sa naših područja koji prate dr. Tour-a, Mayer-a, Lennox-a...
@@MultiSky7pratim sve navedene i slične već koju godinu da. Ima nas više nego mislimo :) Silvio Papić je naš pa poprati i njega, ima kvalitetu..
May the Lord God guide you and strengthen you men of God for teaching the beauty of the study of His creation.
Amen and I pray for these men also Father and I pray in Jesus name your only begotten son who you gave for our sake that he would bear our sins and give us his Holiness and then you raised him from the dead and gave the people that you would judge the world one day by that man and I hope for people to listen to you and read your word and pray so they will have salvation before it's too late. Father I never needed to understand everything about your creation but some people seem to have to prove but I hope they read John chapter 14 verse 21 and take the deal and I praise you Father God Almighty and Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost amen
@@DsleIvester Amen. God bless you in the name of the Lord Jesus.
May Lord bless you more Dr. James Tour
Excellent
We are on board with you Stephen C Meyer and Denis Noble
Yes. Bless him for making the sheep able to sleep at night.
@@gracefulsledge2857 The sheep lay down att night knowing they are safe. The wolves and atheists are tormented trying to hammer a square steel girder into a tiny round hole.
@@peterzinya1 Nonsense. You're talking out your ass. Sheep lay down at night far from feeling safe. All you fuckers do is whine about how the end of the works is near and how all the unarmed woke the left are coming to get you.
May God bless you all❤❤❤❤
Eu amo o seu trabalho, professor! Sou um grande admirador de seu trabalho. Que Deus o abençoe! Um oi aqui do Brasil.
somos 2 🙋♂️
Dr. Tour you and Dr. Meyer are true scientists. Only when scientists have courage are they able to truly make discoveries. Thank you!!!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
“NO ‘Serious’ Scientist thinks that Life began by ‘Chance’.”
~ Dr. Stephen C. Meyer/Signature in the Cell
~~~
:)
@@shawnambrisco4598 Written by someone with no qualifications in cellular biology.
@@mirandahotspring4019 Yeah, Stephen Meyer is a Discovery Institute hack who was never a real scientist, and Tour stopped being one years ago to become a preacher.
@@mirandahotspring4019 True, neither Meyer nor Tour understand anything about biology or evolution. They are well out of their depth.
So fun to listen to you guys!
Great work you guys (and Nick Lane with Joanna Xavier) in bringing common sense and down to earth argumentation in Science. This attitude should extend to other branches of Science that should not obey the whims of misguided politicians.
I haven't got a scientific mind, so I cannot follow any of the details and facts, however I can grasp the enormous complexity of the "building processes" of living organisms as you are presenting the issues. I will keep coming back to your channel and click on interviews with either of you, gents - if for nothing else but to see how ignorant I am! Thank you for all your work.... yes, a conversation with someone like Jordan Peterson could give you more "lay" audience!
These speakers and this channel is dedicated to just that: keeping you ignorant by selling you a comfortable lie. A fantasy.
Yes life now is complex because it took 4 billion years of evolution to develop that complexity. They won't tell you that because they want you ignorant.
Jordan Peterson is a creationist loon with no evidence for any of his lies.
I encourage you. As you listen more and see their diagrams, you will understand more. Somewhat like scripture. Thousands of words to describe what God did in one breath after He sculpted Adam from the earth.
I was a friend of Bob Shapiro. We were both Professors at NYU, he in Chemistry, me in the Medical School., We co-taught a course in the School of Journalism on molecular biology and DNA science,, so that science journalism students would know enough about the field to be able to write about it. We used to have lunch together after the class, and I mostly listened to Bob talk about the instability of cytosine, and the politics of academic science. He was a wonderful teacher and a wonderful man, and his work on origin of life was inspiring to me (and so many others). I was thrilled to hear Steve mention him. I think Bob is fully aware of the work both of you are doing, and is smiling down on us. He was not a believer, but I think he got a special pass from the Almighty to allow him to see his legacy in action.
Robert Shapiro started the 3rd Way of Evolution website because Neo-Darwinism wasn't getting it done. I took a Summer course with Lynn Margulis at Amhurst after she invited me. Met her at UCLA at her lecture where she trashed Natural Selection, edit; first night hall was 1/4 full, rest of week standing room only. I intrigued her with my engineering background and my view that Life had to be engineered. She of course had her Gaia Hypothesis even back then, 1979. My company gave me a paid Sabbatical to go. Did you ever meet Lynn?
@@MountainFisheryou’re thinking of James Shapiro
@@MountainFisher Lynn Margulis was brilliant.
@@sharpie6888 That's correct. Two very different Shapiros.
@@sharpie6888 You're correct, I don't know why I confused them, getting old.
excellent work! God bless
I thought it was interesting how Lee Cronin at the table made a point of saying:
"I'm a materialist"; in preface to his views on science / origin of life, etc.
My question to any materialist is:
What informs you of your materialism?? There is certainly nothing in the material world saying: "we are all there is - there's nothing else!"
It seems to be that materialism is therefore self-refuting...🤷🏽♂️
Is this what passes as philosophy here? We can't prove a negative. Until you show that there's more that exists beyond the material - and you clearly cannot show that - then it literally is all we know exists.
If you have evidence of something else feel free to present it to the scientific community.
Until then there is no logical reason to believe something else exists.
@@Reclaimer77 Near Death Experience research claims evidence for unnatural events such as people 'leaving their body' during surgery and witnessing things in other rooms that occurred during the time they were incapacitated.
@@Reclaimer77 at what point after a century of trying to force the material existence to create the material existence, do we figure out that we have the wrong foundation.
True science leads us where the evidence illuminates.
The extreme symbiotic relationships between material existence is evidence that and intelligence outside the material existence is responsible.
If I see patterns of code in the sand, even though I don’t know the symbols or the meaning, the only explanation is that intelligence outside of the sand, and the waves were responsible . That is evidence that demands a verdict.
Likewise, the complexity of the fine, tuned universe, demands a fine tuner.
The complexity of chemicals organizing under the laws of the universe, demands a chemist.
The complexity of design that demands symbiotic relationships demands an intelligent designer .
Reject the evidence, that is your right. But do not reject that the evidence is evidence for a supernatural intelligence.
God’s best on our quest for absolute truth
@@crimsonking5961 the evidence that is produced and conveyed by these two gentlemen is rejected without discussion or contemplation because it does not fit the man-made definition of science.
It was easy to define out intelligent design, when the best and brightest thought that the cell was a gelatin, substance housed in a simple casing.
It is now simple to fabricate fictional stories, keeping the fantasy that men has no one to answer to besides ourselves.
“All things are possible through Satan, who deceived us”.
God’s best on our quest for absolute truth
God truly blessed u guys thanks
Sounds like ID and Dr. Tour are finally breaking through, forcing the other side to admit how far off they are.
No, still pushing their pseudoscience nonsense!
No, no one on "the other side" is conceding anything to these two. The offer nothing, they only attack current research because they don't want science to succeed, that would be too much of a blow to their fragile egos. All they can do is cry god did it.
No, they're not. They preaching to the choir. Nobody else is listening to them or cares about their objections.
@@nitsujism You must not have watched the video then.
Yep, I can see why Lee only ended up talking about the assembly theory now - especially in that disastrous debate of his at Harvard. lol
Thank you gentlemen for letting me peer through your eyes to better understand Gods design.
The fact that DNA / genes (biological coded information) exists at all shows that a Consciousness / Intelligence / Mind is involved in the initial introduction and subsequent propagation of living systems. Undirected random material natural processes have never been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing Functional / Coded / Digital information such as that required for biological systems, even at the most primitive levels of biological life.
"Undirected random material natural processes have never been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing Functional / Coded / Digital information"
You guys repeat this lie all the time, but it's still a lie. It has been observed, period. Educate yourself about the research you are claiming to be an expert in. In 2021 the University of Tokyo created DNA using pre-biotic materials. That RNA then self-replicated, self-diversified, and developed complexity (evolution) all on it's own. Yes (gasp) it added "information" to itself without a "mind" doing it.
I should have thought once we found amino-acids in meteorites that maybe some of you would get a clue how all this works. How it's not a magical god doing it all. How it's not as complex as Creationists pretend it is.
Life is simply chemistry, that's all. There isn't "coded information" in DNA either, it's just chemical reactions assembled by physics. "Information" isn't a physical object!!! DNA is a structure of physical objects arranged by geometry and physics. The "code" is just what we made up by naming those proteins. Stephen Myer has made millions convincing idiots life is a computer program, but that's just not so.
That is just an ignorant lie.
@@maylingng4107 I completely agree, or at best it's just a string of assertions for which the evidence in rebuttal is extensive and overwhelming. It's a favourite technique of James Tour to assert, falsely, that there is no evidence for x, y and z, or assert that published research does not say what it very clearly says, or to misquote persistently the public statements of scientists, even after he has been corrected; or to engage in angry _ad hominem_ tirades against individuals and fields of research whose interests he dislikes, and he often stoops to insults. Which is unfortunately a very bad role model to set for his supporters, many of whom are not scientificalky literate or even well disposed to science, and consequently are biddable, and prone to mirror the same faults he exhibits. They have a predetermined destination that they want to arrive at by 'scientific' means, but they ignore or try to ridicule any science that is inconsistent with their goals, while manufacturing more convenient theories for which they do not have evidence. Many of them do not know any better, but James Tour does, or at least should. I find him to be extremely dishonest, psychologically devious and manipulativeo. It's depressing to read so many sycophantic and / or misleading comments in support of him.
@@Ozymandi_as cope
Thank you both for fighting the good fight!
They’re both fucking chumps. Tour needed to be slapped around by his mummy.
Praise the God ❤
How amazing is life! How Complex! How well designed is life! Praise to the Creator and to the uncovering of His handiwork through science.
Well, that's one way of looking at it. So tell us, why don't you believe in all the other gods humans have invented to explain everything they don't understand? When you manage to explain that, you'll understand why atheists don't believe in yours, either.
James is one of the greatest.
Let me finish that sentence for you, "... intellectually dishonest liars in the scientifically community."
@@mirandahotspring4019 Do you always defame people?
@@JungleJargon Learn the difference between calling someone out and defaming them. It's only defamation if it's intentionally untrue!
@@mirandahotspring4019 So you believe you are being fair?
Absolutely!
What a pleasure to see these towering minds interacting and indeed agreeing concerning the utter complexity of the most simple life form, and also the more complex body plans, thereby showing that no natural explanation for the origin of life is credible. My PhD and practical experience in animal genetics and breeding is consistent with their obvious conclusion that life is the product of an incredibly intelligent mind! Well dooe. I hope that many will sit up and abandon their fantasies which have no real scientific backing.
well-known bio-chemist from
Germany told me that even a
computing power of several quadrillions
operations per second are by far (!!!) not sufficient to decipher the riddle of life.......
So tell us, if life "must" have been the product of an even more complex mind, then what was that mind a product of? After all, a creator is generally more complex than its creation. So if complexity requires a creator, what created the creator? How many levels down do you people need to go?
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 "Leszek, unfortunately, you are already too old to understand this..."..
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 The obvious counter argument being "how did something come from nothing?". The point is that abiogenesis is wildly implausible, if not outright obviously false.
Brilliant discussion. Thank you for bringing both of your decades of study to bear on the subject. One can hear that Prof. Tour, as a true scientist, has no time for so called "fluff". Tour has about 650 research publications and over 200 patents, with an H-index > 170 with total citations over 130,000 (as of November 2023).
Many of them the work of his students that he has appended his name to.
@@mirandahotspring4019that's called a citation, not a paper.
@@marcleysens7716 How about the paper he had to withdraw because it was plagiarised and fake?
@@marcleysens7716 Yep. Mr. Tour isn't as honest as he'd have you believe.
@@marcleysens7716 He insisted his name be added to one paper on the strength of a brief hallway discussion about it. Try Googling "the honesty of James Tour"
Stephen Meyer & James Tour, 👍👍👏 for a very interesting discussion and comments!
Regarding OoL research, virtually everything that the OoL scientists appear to be doing is Investigator Interference (i.e. use of Mind/Conscious/Intelligence); then claiming Methodological Naturalism (i.e. non-use of Mind/Conscious/Intelligence). And even with all of the Investigator Interference, the Ool Scientists have still been unable to demonstrate abiogenesis.
We are investigating OOL because we don't know how it happened.
How do you investigating OOL without using your mind???
in other words, they can not replicate using intelligence what they pretend happened without any
@@bogdanpopescu1401 how would you replicate it without Intelligence...
@@crimsonking5961 ask them, not me :)
for me a 100% valid proof would be to start with the conditions of the early Earth and let them work without any intervention to produce a living organism;
anything less than that can only give a lesser or bigger level of confidence that life could originate out of matter alone; splitting the whole process in a few steps for example and working them separately would give a pretty high confidence; but obviously it doesn't seem we are anywhere close
@@bogdanpopescu1401 We don't know all the conditions of an early earth or how long life took to arise. It could have been a thousand years.
The best we can do right now is see if its possible for components of proto cells to form naturally.
Two gargantuan intellects dropping wisdom on the world of science!!!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
“Science doesn’t ‘S-a-y’ Anything;
Scientists Do.”
~ Prof John Lennox
~~~
(Make that 'THREE' !!!)
~~~
:)
~~~
'GLORY' to GOD/JESUS !!!
~~~
:)
Meyer has all his life only dropped intellectual shit on the world.
Did I miss something? WHO are these two gargantuan intellects you speak of?? Perhaps they're in a different video.
Great work, guys. Just like to ask a couple of questions. 1) Could either of you talk to Sir Roger Penrose about any of the arguments concerning God and physcis? 2) Could either of you perhaps be interviewed by Jordan Peterson? 3) Because you see mechanisms in cells -- gears and integrated circuits -- could that be because we are already familiar with that technology and could spot it. However, there could be technology that we can't see because we have not invented or discovered it yet. Seeing is a condition of recognizing what we are familiar with. It is based on the past history of technology. Thanks for the great work you do!
I think Stephen Meyer was interviewed by Jordan Peterson
@@thadofalltrades I will check that out. Thanks.
@thadofalltrades I've checked it out and can't see anything. If you see it, maybe you can send me the link. Thanks.
@@countvlad8845 it must've been Joe Rogan's show
Thank you Stephen and James for going into the depth of this subject. One idea that I have, this is a simplistic view. In the manufacturing industry we have a problem. We define the problem, as best we can. Now we start to solve the problem putting together the necessary pieces and parts to solve the problem. Now we need to test our solution. The solution may work for the most part but usually not the first iteration. It comes back to what you are talking about. Intelligent design. For us compared to what you are talking about is a very very simple design.
So who designed your god?
In design you have a goal. There's no goal in evolution other than to survive, and even then it's gets it wrong. More species have gone extinct than are alive today by far.
Intelligent Design is just Creationism with the magic removed. It doesn't answer any questions like the how, or the why. Because the secret answer is "God".
got it, Dr Urey was my Organic Chem teacher. He tried not to be embarrassed. The absence of proof is not the proof of absence. Still, the harder we look, the more designed, life seems to be. Of course the Big Bang blew up this year too. Jumping to fictional archetypes, no matter how lofty in its magnificence, is not a logical conclusion, its Fluff. Very exciting. I'm rooting for God.
The problem for -creationists- cdesign proponentsists is that to be taken seriously, they need to show their god exists, and document the magical incantations it uses to bring about universes and life out of nothing. That would indeed be a sight to see!
We know He exists. We do not try to explain away this evidence. But, what should be more understood, is no one has shown that it all could have occurred in some other way.@@Sparrow-hawk-666
@@rtmcdge Prove it.
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 I would be very careful using the word prove. The question of God isn't a scientific one, which deals with some proofs, but a philosophical one, usually dealing with evidence not proof.
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 I don't think it's mandatory for creationists to show God exists (in the sense of producing him so that we can see, touch him directly). We also can't directly do that for dark matter or dark energy. In fact these things are undetectable by any of our tools. But we accept their existence. Because we see their effects. Similarly creationists infer God by his effects on nature
I don't understand how educated people can be so dense. You must really like your god.
An unhackable system? Imagine that!
Omniscient God?
The only Wise God?
Be honor and Glory forever and ever. Amen
Riveting conversation! Absolutely loved this video. The remaining problem is getting a couple of important people in my life, who have been hoodwinked by evolution/atheism, to actually sit and watch this. THAT is a real challenge. The evolution advocates have been very successful in dissuading people from listening to any scientist who happens to believe in God, notwithstanding that you guys are using real science to disprove evolutionary dogma. Peace and blessings. Tom
The Bible has a term for those that refuse even consider Biblical worldview...it calls them willingly ignorant.
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
The biggest irony of the Ool research is that, even if the scientists would succeed in creating a cell, it would show that it was created by means of their own intelligence, thus proving intelligent design.
Furthermore, we could then move the goalpost further for them and say, ok you created life by using already preexisting matter, now try to create matter itself (Oom reasearch).
But what if the experiment shows the cell could form naturally?
But immediately it would show that a supernatural explanation for life is not necessary. Nevertheless, once life has been recreated, research can move to see what conditions arise naturally for it to do so.
@@nitsujism Wrong, it would prove that life can only be explained by intelligent control.....
Say you know nothing about OoL without saying you know nothing about OoL.
@@mirandahotspring4019 "The greatest enemy of human knowledge is its own EGO."...🙂🙂🙂
Thank you Dr. James Tour you are an amazing scientist, teacher, and human being and a great brother in Christ. My God always bless you and keep you safe 🙏🏼❤️ 💖💕
"Selection" as a material mechanism has never been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to cause atoms and molecules to form into DNA / RNA.
Has god been observed making life? I love the double-standard you Creationists apply to this debate.
@@Reclaimer77 So are you or aren't you okay with not having an explanation?
@Reclaimer77 KJV And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Yes, He was observed.
Are there any other questions I can assist you with?
You haven't listened to this talk have you?
Ummm that was a quote from a man made book @@stephanosjacobus7717
Evolution and OOL are a doctrines that has to be accepted by FAITH. Problem is, these theories as no foundations and proofs. They need billions of years to support thier doctines and claim it is observable. Thank you Dr Tour & Dr Meyer. God bless you richly. May your children follow your footsteps.
That's your religion, dear, I think you're getting confused between religion and science. Science has objective evidence in its favour. Your religion has nothing at all.
Why do comments here get blocked? What is going on?
Creationists do not like to be challenged.
@@maylingng4107
That's wrong. I'm arguing the Tour side and my posts are blocked repeatedly. I can't reply to anybody about actual science. Grrr...
@@sliglusamelius8578
Tour has no real arguments on the Origin of Life, all his reasoning is from his religion. He is a messianic Jew (Jews for Jesus) a small cult under one half million members. He is also a propagandist for the Discovery Institute, and anti-science fundamentalist cult. My posts are not deleted, in spite of my criticisms.
Excellent information. Great job.
Thank you. I always wondered if among the first fish, did some have a full head of hair? I think that would be funny.
It would be "finny"
Probably not, but it certaintly had an ape-like anchestor.
You guys are doing great!!!
Oh I can’t wait for the professor Dave debunk 😂👍 keep up with material guys 👍
Dave Farina made Tour look like an absolute idiot in their last debate. It's not a very difficult task. All tour can do is attack current science on OoL with misleading intellectually dishonest statements and quote mine from published papers, deliberately misinterpreting them. He can offer nothing in return, only god did it.
@@mirandahotspring4019 You can't really believe that. Young Dave pointed to the TITLE of a paper and exclaimed _"It's right there"!_ That is, he _believed_ the title. He thought the title was all that he needed to read. Meanwhile, Dr.Tour was discussing the _content_ of that paper in detail and even speaking knowledgeably about the supporting materials. Poor Dave.
You sound like a cheerleader, @@mirandahotspring4019. Go! Team! Go!
@@KenJackson_US Oh come on! Tour got owned! He lied and was exposed for it.
After the Tour/Farina debate Lee Cronin was the only one who responded to tell him how ridiculous he is. That prompted James and the DI to convince Lee to come to Harvard for a "round table discussion", and it was absolutely hilarious. It was just several scientists and philosophers dumping all over James for hours, and watching him squirm. They made a complete fool of him.
@@mirandahotspring4019: _"He lied ..."_
That's easy to say. What did he say that wasn't true? Do you understand chemistry?
So well stated.
The term "Assembly Theory" is a misnomer. Just like Abiogenesis, "Assembly Theory" is Not a Scientific Theory: it is merely a hypothesis (i.e. educated or hypothetical Guess).
*_“Assembly theory is a hypothesis that characterizes object complexity. When applied to molecule complexity, its authors claim it to be the first technique that is experimentally verifiable, unlike other molecular complexity algorithms that lack experimental measure … The theory was developed as a means to detect evidence of extraterrestrial life from data gathered by astronomical observations or probes.”_* (Source:Wikipedia, Assembly Theory)
Scientists at the highest levels of academia are (whether negligently or intentionally deceptively to mislead in forwarding a particular ideological / worldview agenda) tossing around the words "hypothesis" and "theory" as interchangeable synonyms. This has caused much confusion within the general population regarding many important scientific subjects such as Cosmology, Origin of Life (OoL), Macro-evolution, Micro-evolution, etc. which have profound social, political, and religious implications.
Dr Zanil has already dismantled the assembly theory...
According to Meyer it's not even a hypothesis, just a formal statement of the problem itself.
I've seen so many people decry you both. Good to see you in my feed.
Jesus in science! 😂 That says it all! 😂😂😂
Hey, actually, Jesus Christ did scientific practices when he was on Earth which seemed like magic to the uneducated natural man. Once we get to heaven, we can all understand and replicate the exact Scientific practices that Jesus Christ did on Earth with our new spiritual bodies.
Thank you both. Cronin’s equation can be a helpful metric at best and it doesn’t describe any principle like the laws of thermodynamics, with which you can design experiments and make predictions.
Well, you can certainly take issue with Cronin's assembly theory and its usefulness. I don't know enough about it to comment on that. Maybe it's totally whacked and useless. But let's say Cronin's particular hypothesis is wrong. Doesn't somehow prove abiogenesis wasn't a reality.
The point is, at the beginning of the universe, so far as cosmologists are able to tell, life was impossible anywhere, because the energy density and fluctuation was just too high for stable molecules to exist. Then at some point, it cooled down sufficiently to allow life to appear.
The question is whether it appeared naturally, or was zapped into existence by... a god! I prefer thinking it appeared naturally, because there's no evidence for a god zapping life into existence, and there never has been. Just because we don't know what natural mechanisms caused it, yet, doesn't mean the god notion wins by default.
There are currently no known examples, in nature or science, where one life form will convert to a different life form (i.e. different body plan) by change in the DNA. Current understanding in the field of genetics seems to indicate that varying body plans (for example, the difference between an octopus and praying mantis) do not reside within the DNA. Genes within the DNA of a particular organism code for the different proteins required to build and allow that particular organism to function but has not been shown to determine that particular organism's primary biological architectural body plan. Therefore, no amount of random mutation of DNA will produce a new organism with a different body plan from the original.
And no scientists ever in the history of history, has said a life form "converted" to another life form. Are you people all on drugs or something??? Also what the hell is a "body plan"? That sounds like something Stephen Myer and his group of Creationist misfits made up. Pretending life is a set of blueprints and schematics from a computer and other stupid analogies.
I have to ask...what makes you comfortable with lying like this? Isn't there something in the bible about bearing false witness?
I believe that’s called transmutation. you’re absolutely correct.
These findings should be all over the news. The fact that it isn't is disturbing enough.
E nem irão, só Deus é capaz de criar a vida.
Dr. Meyer states his point in a way that is not offensive.
Dr. Tour wants "facts" and not just some nice stories that have a scientific buzz.
He wants to cut straight to chase.
While I like to listen to Dr. Meyer's stories, I want to see "the facts".
I want to thank both for their contributions to the understanding of science.
Origin of Life scientists realized that in order to maintain good standing, and funding they must continue with the lies. They may have started out with good intentions but then became addicted to their lifestyle
That's not actually the case. The research is legitimate and useful even if the end result isn't Abiogenesis. The general public does not care about the subject so there's no actual benefit to the hype. Journalists often engage in wishful thinking or otherwise don't understand the problem.
That's an interesting claim. Do you have a citation to back that up or do you need it to be true?
99% of Science is failure. OOL research is a monumentally daunting task. Trying to recreate the conditions for life to occur is nigh impossible. Not an easy task by any means. Takes years of work to validate. More like they dug themselves into a hole for decades and can no longer escape.
@@Ab_Def_ you cannot provide citations on motives.
@@sentientflower7891
The commenter made a claim about thousands of legitimate scientists lying.
A claim like that requires evidence, not just assertion.
We'll never know fully until we're dead and resurrected into the Glory of God Almighty through Jesus Christ.
All you need is to add John Lennox to the discussion and you will have the 3 stooges.
So, nothing but more ad homs again huh? Way to go, "scientist."
@@codonmatrix4510
Nothing? you cannot read? Hundreds of lies, willful deceit by the 2 clowns. They preach biblical creation, reject the Fact and Science of Evolution, and want to replace science in the public schools with biblical creationism. Have you got past the 10th grade? Sounds like, you did not.
@@maylingng4107 Exactly WHAT "facts" do you have in regards to abiogenesis? You have proof? If so, show us how it's done. Reality is, we all know your "facts" are nothing but your hopes and wishes. What magical unguided process created life? Any idea? In fact, show me any unguided process that can create the complex integrated systems involved in the simplest of life. Go ahead. Explain how random molecules became enantiomericly pure and self organized to create long chain proteins. Go ahead, and if you can do that, then explain where the encoded information came from. However, we both know you won't do that because you CAN'T, but you still believe it. Believe what you want, being willfully ignorant is your choice, might as well enjoy it I guess.
@@codonmatrix4510
Abiogenesis is in the hypothesis stage. More research is still needed to confirm a scientific theory. Synthetic life has already been manufactured in the laboratory. Or are you ignorant of the science? I can explain the process of abiogenesis, but you would not understand any of it, and it would take more than 100 pages. So instead of that, just this once, I am going to very briefly summarize where the current research stands.
*Before that summary, I am going to say that you do not have any alternative, or s shred of evidence for any other process, especially not for a creation by our god. Here is the challenge only once: "provide evidence that what I summarize is incorrect and your god creating life is correct!" (I expect that you will not be able to answer and your lying mouth will be shut hereafter*
*The Origin of Life*
While we have not defined completely the process by which the first life form was assembled, it does not mean that we are clueless about the origins. We do have many experiments that have revealed some of the internal processes. More evidence is needed, for sure, since we are at the hypothesis stage only. Here is one of the most rational hypothesis from Dr. Jack Szostak, (a Nobel prize laurate and professor at Harvard Medical School).
Since man has walked on earth, he had an incessant curiosity to understand his beginnings. Not being able to find a rational answer, he invented a bunch of creation stories, all of which have one thing in common: because no human could conceive a natural process, he had to resort to a supernatural explanation. His understanding was further confused by his observed experience that “only life can ‘beget’ life.
First and foremost, let us differentiate the beginning of life (abiogenesis) from evolution (evolving of species). One does not have anything to do with the other: the first explains generation of life from ‘non-life’, while the latter explains how species evolve, once there is life. Second, let us understand that a scientific theory is the explanation of a specific set of facts. Claiming that evolution does not work because it does not explain the beginning of life, is like claiming that an umbrella does not work, because it does not predict when it is going to rain. Here are the creationist arguments against abiogenesis.
1. Spontaneous generation of complex organisms is impossible. Spontaneous generation was tested and proven false by Francesco Rei (1668), by Lazzaro Spallanzini (1765) and Louis Pasteur (1859)
2. The probability of s single cell forming is 1 in 10 raised to the 50,000 power. Let us disregard the fact this is a totally made up number it shows that early life could not have been as complex as modern cells.
3. (Supplied by the genius of Ben Stein). “Life was created by lighting striking a mud puddle; and that is just silly. Parenthetically, Stein is correct in that there is one book which claims that life was formed from dirt --- The bible.
4. The Miller-Urey experiment did not create life. This is like claiming that flight to the moon is impossible, because the Wright brothers didn’t.
*So let us examine what science can tell us about the origins of life*
We know from experiments in the fields of Astronomy, Chemistry, Geology and Meteorology that the early pre-biotic earth was filled with organic molecules, the building blocks of life. We also know that organic molecules are very common in space. We also know that early life has been extremely simple…meaning no complex protein machinery in place. Modern cells separate themselves from the environment with a lipid bilayer.
The problem with modern phospholipids is that they are too good at what they do. They form a nearly impenetrable barrier. Modern cells must use proteins to move molecules across their surface. But life did not have to start with modern chemicals!
The pre-biotic environment contain many simple fatty acids. Under the range of pH they spontaneously form stable vesicles and they are permeable to small organic molecules (no complex proteins are required to get stuff in). When a vesicle encounters free fatty acids in solution, it will incorporate them (eating and growth are driven purely by thermodynamics). When a vesicle grows, it adopts a tubular branched shape (because the surface are grows faster than volume), which is easily divided by natural forces (waves, currents, rocks, etc.). When this division takes place, none of the contents of the vesicle are lost.
*So what about the genetic material?*
Modern nucleotides are too stable and require complex machinery to replicate. But the pre-biotic environment contained hundreds of different types of nucleotides, not just DNA and RNA. All it took is 1 to self polymerize (recent experiments have shown that some of these are capable of self polymerization, such as Phosphoramidate DNA). Monomers will base pair with a single stranded template and self ligate. They can also polymerize in solution and spontaneously form new templates, or extend existing templates.
*No special sequences are required, it is just chemistry! But how does this become life?*
Fatty acids are permeable to nucleotide monomers but not polymers. Once spontaneous polymerization occurs within the vesicle, the polymer is trapped. Floating through the ocean the polymer containing vesicles will encounter convection currents, such as set up by hydrothermal vents. The high temperatures will separate the polymer strands and increase the membrane’s permeability to monomers. Once the temperature cools, spontaneous polymerization can occur (and the cycle repeats).
The polymer, due to surrounding ions, will increase the osmotic pressure within the vesicle, stretching its membrane. A vesicle with more polymer through simple thermodynamics will “steal” lipids from a vesicle with less polymer. They essentially, “eat” each other. The vesicle that contains a polymer that can replicate faster, will grow and divide faster, and will eventually dominate the population, and now EVOLUTION can begin.
@@maylingng4107 Well since you have it all figured out, why didn't you take Tour's challenge? You would be famous if you did. I understand you believe what you say, the problem however is you CAN'T do it. The chemistry doesn't work, ESPECIALLY in an unguided format. You see, your main problem is that you are stuck with having to prove it happened WITHOUT intelligent guidance, because it's the only thing that you think will push God out of the picture, which is your REAL goal, not science. You would believe that the first man was a gingerbread man if it allowed you to push out or discredit God. THAT is the truth. You will accept ANY concept whatsoever, as long as it leaves out God, that is your only criteria, everything else, no matter how irrational it is, is viable in your mind.
Thank you!! Great video and impressive work!
You know James Tour is hitting the BULLSEYE when no one can demonstrate that he is wrong. Seems the best they have is to call him names. Thank you Dr. Tour for challenging the claims and asking the questions. That's the way it is supposed to work.
Trouble is, he can't show he's right. He just claims it and screams in rage.
@@Sparrow-hawk-666What exactly do you think he has to show? He claims we have not solved the OOL problem. Has OOL been solved to date? If so, who solved it and when. Not so easy is it?
@@KelliAnnWinkler Wee Jimmie Tour claims it's impossible. How does he do that? Magic? Because is ain't science.
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 He has NEVER claimed it is impossible. His claim that no one has "created" life yet is true. He also says that someday we may solve the question of OOL. Again, has the problem been solved? No, it has not been solved YET. Maybe someday, but NOT yet. That's science.
@@KelliAnnWinkler Wee Jimmie Tour is a young earth creationist. That's why he claims abiogenesis is impossible. He denies it with every breath. He lives and breaths his daffy religion.
Loves the Good Cop, Bad Cop angle!!!🤣🤣🤣❤❤❤😄😄😄
Jim constantly talks about how scientists are on his side and agree with his stance on OoL. How come the only people who are willing to come to his channel to talk about it are people associated with the Discovery Institute, a “politically conservative think tank that advocates the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design” according to Wikipedia?
Perhaps it's because very few real scientists are on Tour's side, and are more embarrassed by him than anything else.
The only "scientists" on Tour' side are the mouthpieces from the Discovery Institute.
I can't think of anyone else; Can you?
He never suggested that many scientists are on his side. They are not, and he knows it, and doesn't hesitate to admit it. Citing Wikipedia as an authority is kind of silly (no offense). And besides, it isn't about "sides." Science is not politics. If one scientist has the facts ( which Tour DOES), then it makes NO difference how many scientists agree or disagree with him....because even if EVERY scientist disagreed with him that would just mean that every scientist is wrong ! Because facts are facts, not opinions.
@@maylingng4107 Yeah, pretty much. Tour may have once been a reputable scientist, but he left that behind long ago. And the so-called "Discovery Institute" doesn't employ scientists, just preachers wearing white lab coats.
@@maylingng4107 There's no science behind Tour's OOL posturing, and no scientists at the Discovery Institute either - just preachers wearing white coats playing at being scientists.
Thanks! Amen and God bless you abundantly!!!
10:00 Ecclesiastes 1:9 What has been done will be done again, and what has happened will happen again. There is nothing new under the sun.
Didn’t we already have multiple videos talking Lee Cronin and the Harvard discussion? Why does Jim like making so many videos about 1 event? Most UA-camrs make follow-up videos if something new happened in the event that we didn’t see when it first happened. But everything that was discussed here seems to be present in the videos described. What’s the point of even watching if we can just watch the original video and get the same information?
The videos are made by the Discovery Institute, the only supporter Jim has.
@@maylingng4107
You, *"the only supporter Jim has."*
Is that your metric? How wonderfully pathetic!
How many supporters did Copernicus have?
@@samdg1234
Jim Tour is not accepted by the science community; he is regarded as a religious zealot. And Stephen Meyer is an uneducated (in biology) propagandist and mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute. Funny name, is it not: What did this cult DISCOVER?
My metric is my knowledge of biology; the knowledge to know that neither Tour nor Meyer know what they are talking about. Neither have any education in the Origin of Life research; they just deny what has been uncovered by the science community for a couple of years by now.
@@maylingng4107
It appears you’ve posted a reply to me and either you or UA-cam deleted it.
I’m guessing that it was you.
You said, *“Sam dg Jim Tour is not accepted by the science community; he is regarded as a religious zealot”*
I’d have been inclined to delete such vacuous nonsense to.
The “science community”. What in your propagandistic world is that? Wasn’t it the “science community” that deemed, for a while at least (until it was pointed out what utter tripe it was) that the theory of Covid originating in a lab as a racist conspiracy theory.
I guess my Copernicus comment went over your head. It was meant to illustrate that 1) having no one else siding with your theory doesn’t contribute to the veracity of the theory, and 2) religious zealotry counts not a whit against the theory.
But you, like all atheist seals here, are just totally out of anything legitimate to bring against what Tour is saying here, and so resort to the last pathetic defense, the ad hominem. I pity you.
I think Jim Tour regards himself as a religious zealot. And still you have nothing to say against the science he presents. But you've got company. Neither do any of the 10 top OOL researchers to whom he issued his last challenge. But you are also in the company of Duffus-or Dave. He has the answers to Tour's 5 questions.
because algorithms. i ldid not see the video u are talking about but im seeing this one. case closed
Two GIANTS of Christianity.
Stephen Myer: Only an intelligent mind can create data and complexity, therefore god
James Tour: Our intelligent minds can't make a cell which has data and complexity, therefore god.
Can someone make this make sense?? The goalpost moving and conflicting fallacies are coming at warp speed here.
Dr. James Tour previously proposed that he would give a newly dead cell with all its parts still in place to abiogenesis scientists to allow them to try and bring it back to life...he gave then a kickstart with everything in place....but they would not take him up on the offer....I wonder why?
@@alantasman8273 Because reviving a dead jalopy tells us nothing about how abiogenesis happened. Even you creos are forced to admit that once upon a time, the earth was lifeless. Then life appeared. What is your scientifically testable theory? And stop spamming crap.
“For the ‘wisdom of this world’ is Foolishness with GOD.
For it is Written;
HE TAKETH THE WISE IN THEIR OWN CRAFTINESS.”
~ Apostle Paul ~
(1 Cor 3:19)
~~~
“HE that sits in the Heavens shall LAUGH;
The LORD Shall have them in ‘Derision’.”
(Psalm 2:4)
~~~
:)
All the world experts should have asked Dave Farina. He knows all the answers to OOL problems! 😅😅😅😅
No, he doesn't. But he is able to expose the intellectual dishonesty of people like James Tour.
@@mirandahotspring4019your standards of evidence are low.
@@sentientflower7891 Your standards of evidence are totally absent, You believe in fairy tales.
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 okay. How did Abiogenesis happen? How many different pathways exist? Could life exist with less than twenty amino acids?
@@sentientflower7891 I've no idea. That's why it's the subject of *RESEARCH!* You know, research is what scientists do when they don't have an answer to a question they are interested in. They don't just read the book of genesis and think that provides any answer, the way Tour does.
Trying to read The Animate and the Inanimate just now.
Lee Cronin will die with his lies.
Oh dear. Even Jame's colleagues are coming out about his ranpant plagiarism and false statements.
That's not good. Looks like Lee didn't actually do anything wrong.
James's own 'friends' are outing him as a complete fraud, with evidence of all the papers he's had to retract due to fraud and plagiarism.
I'm starting to think he's not as honest as he attempts to portray himself as.
Lee Cronin ain't the enemy. Stop treating him as an enemy. None of the scientists engaged in origin of life research are enemies nor is there any sort of conspiracy on their part to sell Abiogenesis to the public since the general public and the educated public and professional public don't even know that Abiogenesis is a subject matter much less a matter of dispute.
Perhaps, but so will all of us sinners.
How many lies have you told in your life?
@@sentientflower7891 This is what the Christian nationalists do. Cry about being oppressed while organizing hate campaigns against one honest researcher who had the unfortunate luck of getting into this psychopaths crosshairs, this 'Dr' James Tour.
Jesus came back to life and said that His believing followers would someday do as well. Tour's evidence is the risen Lord Jesus.
Good. I bet another Professor Dave video where he calls Tour a fraud for an hour is on the way.
A fake professor calling others ‘frauds’. Ironic.
@@michaelportaloo1981 you can’t compare a UA-camr doing science communication and research with a creationist maniac with anger control problems.
@@BenjaminSteber I didn't compare them. I only mentioned Dave.
@@michaelportaloo1981 are you a creationist and/or biblical literalist?
@@BenjaminSteber Why? What has what people believe or don't believe got to do with what they claim to know or whether they pretend to be what they are not?
A verdade é libertadora, as estruturas começam a tremer, os terremotos geram tsunamis, a chuva está a caminho, the stablishment is shaking, every tongue shall confess you e every knees shal bend to the Creator of heavens and earth, from Brazil,
Psalm 2, 19, 83, 139 !
Amazing! Meyer, a members of the Discovery Institute is discussing with Tour their mutual ignorance about the origin of life research. Neither of them has any education on this area. Tour and Meyer have never published a single peer-reviewed article on this topic. But that does not stop the Discovery Institute preachers in preaching religious nonsense.
I hope you stayed long enough to listen to the entire discussion, May Ling.
And why dont you email Dr Tour to have a Zoom session with him to discuss these issues or go on his podcast since you are such a highly educated scientist in this field.
@@xtnese
I do not waste time with people who claim that Jesus appeared in the flesh in their bedroom for a conversation, as James Tour does. I am busy in bio-research instead of preaching propaganda, unlike Dr. Tour. I have a serious contempt for the members of the Discovery Institute (Tour is a member) who are on a mission to poison young minds. (P.S. - I have participated in a group discussion in the past with him, a compete waste of time that was).
@@maylingng4107
I appreciate that you take the time out from your busy Bio Research to reply to me.
Is it in the area of origin of Life?
I'm not a big fan of the Discovery Institute either, as they deny Jesus as the Intelligent Designer behind creation.
I'm not sure what role Dr Tour plays there.
Im a disciple of the Ken Ham, Answers In Genesis, Young Earth Creationist Christian school of thought.
It is evolution that poisons young minds by telling them that they are merely products of time and chance without any purpose.
I believe evolutionary ideology has led to the rise in school tragedies , like Columbine, among many others.
This rise has been in correlation with the removal of Prayer, Bible reading, the teaching of the Golden Rule , and the Ten Commandments removed from our classrooms in 1963 courtesy of Madalyn Murray O'Hair.
This Easter Season I pray that Jesus reveals Himself to you too.
Your being silly. Read Meyer's books and you will see for yourself that he is VERY well-informed on the whole history of Origin of Life research up to the present day. And Tour is literally one of the most brilliant scientists in America today, and uniquely qualified to comment on these topics as both a synthetic organic chemist and a world-renowned nanotechnologist.
@@CarlMCole
Meyer very well informed? you mean when he is not lying through his teeth, which is almost never. Meyer has no education in biology and never published a single peer-reviewed article on the Origin of Life, and neither has Tour.
Meyer is a charter member of the Discovery Institute, and organization that seeks to replace the teaching of evolution with biblical creation in the public schools. There were more than a dozen court cases about this, Meyer and the DI lost all of them. The most famous was Kitzmiller v. Dover BofE in 2005, where the teaching of Intelligent Design (advocated by Meyer) was totally discredited and Judge Jones (an church going Christian) ruled it to be not science, but religion.
Silly? I have a word for your nonsense, which decorum does not allow me to write. You are totally ignorant of the research in this field, where gigantic progress has been and is being made by legitimate scientists, not by religious loons and pretenders. Meyer's book "Signature in the Cell" Where he attacks evolution and argues for "intelligent design" --- to call the book pseudo-science is an understatement, a total dishonest trash is far more appropriate.
PS: Meyer and Tour display their "brilliance" by rejecting the fact of evolution. Can you name a single science organization anywhere on the face of the earth that rejects evolution? So much for their brilliance and yours.
17:40 the Phillip Ball book is remarkable in that over 400 pages of extremely intelligent discussion of the cell there is precisely one sentence dedicated to the origin of life, and the problem is mentioned only to dismiss.
What have the Discovery Institute discovered?
They've discovered and amply displayed the fraudulence of the so-called science of evolution.
They've discovered a source of cash from gullible believers.
@Sparrow-hawk-666 They have clearly discovered the ways of attracting two colossal minds like you!
They've discovered and amply displayed the fraudulence of the so-called "science" of evolution.
They've discovered and shown the emptiness of evolution and revealed that it's not science.
Stephen NAILS IT at 22:00.
The INSTRUCTIONS are built into the creature, by the creator of everything who engineered this.
The creator is the only one who has done this to date, with every cell in every organ of every creature.
Without the instructions built into every cell, man can not even "MAKE" an amoeba.
It's amusing to see how many credulous believers baulk at evolution, because they can't figure it out, yet are happy to accept a wizard muttering magical incantations and zapping life into existence, out of nothing. Maybe they should consider going back to school to learn the basics of science.
I find it terribly disingenuous of you to create your own idea of what someone else believes. Nobody believes what you suggest except you apparently. I have not seen even one person in the field ever suggest a wizard. If you want to take that approach, then I suggest that your wizard is time, and it didn't even mutter an incantation, it just zapped into life on it's own out of nothing but raw elements. Maybe YOU should go to school, or at least try to think, instead of practicing your version of a parrot that repeats everything someone else tells it. You screech and yowl constantly yet provide not one single shred of evidence, but you have great faith in your fictional narrative that you try so hard to push. In fact, you are so clueless that you don't even realize it, you just keep digging your hole deeper. Well enjoy your failure I guess. You seem to love playing the fool and relish it like a pig in it's own mire. Go ahead, keep wallowing, it's quite amusing.
Joined 6 months ago. Surely this isn't a bot account.
@@johnjackson9767 I take it you are as scientifically illiterate as Mr Tour?
Stephen Meyer's going to tell you what it is, Stephen Meyer's going to tell you how to live. He's like a gift that he only wants to give.. that's my poem lol.
Each cell's Interactome protein combination space 10^79,000,000,000 . Average human has 37 trillion cells. That's ten to the seventy nine billion to the 37 trillionth power. Each cell has one hundred trillion atoms.
My understanding is that the 10^79,000,000,000 is the interactomes or protein to protein reactions in a microbial yeast cell.
However the mammalian cell does not have that type of interactome, but rather ribosomes, these are complex organelle structures, that decode mRNA and build all the functioning proteins.
The likelihood of either ultra complex system requisite for cell function evolving by “happy accidents” is still akin to attempting to find a particular nano quantum dot, in a sea of a centillion multiverses.
This is absolutely mind-boggling!!!
Okay? So what?
@@SigmaValence
So teleological considerations make abiogenesis ridiculously impossible, that's what.
The paper that figure was pulled from has been shown to be garbage.
One of the main problems is the segregation that occurred between philosophy and natural sciences at the turn of the 20th century. The natural sciences are still suffering under the influence of the logical positivists, even though Ayer et al.'s theories have long been discarded.
MR. FARINA!!!
As we learn more about how complex the cell is, Assembly Theory can at least attempt to track the lower bound of the actual complexity of life.
Maybe there is no lower bound, and non-living subtly merges into living chemistry. Life is just a bounded set of biochemical reactions, after all. It's a complex set now, but it's had billions of years of trial and error to get to this point.
Dr Tour is convinced he will come back to life in another realm..his evidence..ZERO
I think Heaven is another realm.
His evidence is the same that drives the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is risen, He is not here! Why seek the Living from among the dead?
I'll pray for you
Is it possible to get a transcript of this discussion?
Does Tour or any of his faithful acolytes have any scientific evidence that disproves evolution, or abiogenesis? I know he doesn't understand evolution, he admitted it on his website (in a brief flash of honesty), but he seems to misunderstand the issues investigated by OOL researchers as well. It's not in his bible, and that's the only rule he ever applies.
Sweetie, abiogenesis and OOL is making the claims that they cannot prove. You don’t disprove something that never happened and there is no evidence it did.
@@crackheadbiden3273 There's more evidence for abiogenesis than for your magical wizard, sweetiepie. Your god is a figment of your imagination, and that's the only place it exists in.
@@crackheadbiden3273 Evolution is a FACT, it has been observed in nature and duplicated in the laboratory. Abiogenesis' is in the hypothesis stage. While there is much evidence, still not sufficient to form a scientific theory. Dr. Jack Szostak and his team are close, perhaps a decade of two away understanding the entire process.
@@crackheadbiden3273 The Farina cheerleaders don't realise that anyway..
@@maylingng4107 That was something for the satirical magazine..
When will the majority of scientists overcome their fear of the cancel culture and the deep almost reverent belief of Darwin being a faith based worship entity and say simply that the EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES????
Your god is naked? He's always portrayed with a loincloth, at least. Evolution is real, but your belief is fake, Deal with it.
Being outed as a serial plagiarist and a fraud by your own faculty and friends is a bad look James.
Assertions and accusations are not evidence dude. I can make a video saying that my co worker steals my lunch everyday. That makes it true?
No judge will take your confirmation bias as evidence.
No one has seen any of his critics since he challenged them to answere real world quastions so what on earth are you babbling about??????. Lee Cronin showed up once. Didn't answer a single question and proceeded to cry like a child and call Dr tour a meanie! Buhahaha!!! What a joke...
@@jIMwILLIAMS-im7kk LOL I love how you all think people are sitting around waiting for this buffoon James Tour to "issue challenges". And when they ignore the challenge, because they ALL KNOW Tour's point is to advance Creationism, he claims it's a victory. Critics??? Half these people didn't even know or cared who this man was until he started ignorantly calling them frauds.
James Tour went to Harvard and got his face kicked in, very politely by REAL scientists who follow evidence. Not "Jesus loves me and said he made me special".
So desperate for having nothing but ad hominem attacks, aren't we?
By the way, when will Dave stop using "professor" as a fake degree in his channel's name? So much for "hype", what a hypocrite.
The problem with OOL under materialism is that nature had no idea what biological life would be. OOL researchers know what biological life looks like. All they need do is study themselves, which is a materialistic paradox.
I would be surprised if Cronin’s assembly theory could come up with a decent solution to how the cell’s respiratory complex evolved from functional prior components.
Wikipedias page on ATP synthase is totally vague on its evolution section for this complex nano turbine structure.
But it is refreshing to see Nick Lane coming half clean in his unravelling paper…
Way to go guys… you’re shaking it up!
So you think magic is a better explanation than evolution. And your evidence for that magic amounts to: I don't know, so a wizard must have dunnit.
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 first you assume I have no evidence for what I believe… that I can assure you is complete and utter scientific illiteracy and ignorance on your part.
There is a ton of evidence not only for Biblical events like the ancient Israelites in Egypt, Jericho with tumbling walls etc etc… but the Turin Shroud is looking 100% authentic… with the 1988 c-14 data being hidden from the scientific community for over 30yrs… requiring invoking the freedom of information act… and now thoroughly debunked.
It is origins of life researchers that appeal to magic, the 21st century version of alchemy, that life can form out of chemicals
What scientific proof do you have?
@@luxliquidlumenvideoproduct5425
You claim scientific evidence for the children's fable in the bible? There is none. The Shroud of Turin is a hoax, it was examined by 3 different laboratories (namely Oxford, Tucson, and Zürich). The supervising institution was the British Museum, headed by Michael Tite. Together with the evidence of the gene coding β-globin, contamination between male and female DNA was documented on the Turin Shroud. Although the presence of male was more noticeable than female DNA, these data were considered null and void. The Shroud was manufactured around the 13th century CE.
Life has formed from chemicals and an energy source. Are you not made of chemicals? Synthetic life has already been formed in the laboratory.
@@maylingng4107 Oh, you want evidence for the bible? Ok that's easy.
1.) A large delta that juts out into the gulf of Aqaba on the Egyptian side.
2.) Two pillars on opposites sides of the crossing point to commemorate the event of the crossing.
3.) Debris and remains of what seems to be an Egyptian army, wheels, bones, etc spread out on the bottom of the gulf between Nuweiba and the Saudi coast.
4.) The 12 wells at Elim. Still exist today.
5.) The split rock at Horeb. Still exists today.
6.) On the eastern side of the Jebal al lawz range, Copious evidence of a large group of seemingly Egyptian people inhabiting that barren landscape for some time.
7.) Signs of water erosion from lots of water in Horeb by the split rock in a region that has very little if any rain.
8.) A rock pile with Egyptian style petroglyphs where the golden calf most likely was placed. Images of the apis bull and hathor. Still there today.
9.) A crush pen to herd in the sacrificial animals to the altar. Still there today.
10.) Paleo-Hebrew writings carved in rocks all over the area. Still there today.
There are lots more things but I'm not going to list them all, just go look and you will find, that is, IF you really want to know, but that is up to you. If you really want the truth, you will go look for yourself.
Actually in the first paper on assembly theory, it showed that critical components of life, like ATP cannot be made abiotically.
So tell me, how come we can find amino acids and nucleic acid bases on meteors?
@@Sparrow-hawk-666Is the meteor alive? Just because you find a few tiny little bricks doesn't mean you can build a tower with it. You are totally CLUELESS. Or maybe you are just willingly ignorant. Hard to tell which. Maybe both.
@@codonmatrix4510 The point that eludes your pointy religious head is that biology is based on molecules that appear naturally, without any magic. You're unable to understand a world that operates without magic, but that's your problem with understanding, not mine.
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 🤣🤣🤣 You just can't quit can you? How many times do you have to make a fool of yourself before you start a new account?
@@jon__doe I make scientific points. You prattle about magical wizards.
About 2-3 weeks ago there was a video here encouraging to ask questions to James Tour and Stephen Meyer. Anyone knows if they answered the questions somewhere?
Dr.Tour,may I take a screenshot of your Characteristics of Life to share if I give credits?
This is amazing, but it looks like to me most research seems to be basing its data on the byproducts after life that have begun.
Is there a response to the “James Tour whistleblower” who Professor Dave had on his channel recently?
Professor Dave followers have got to be some of the most weak minded unthinking people around. Dave has no PHD and his resume of "accomplishments" looks like that of a degree in basket weaving compared to Dr Tours true accomplishments in advancing science.
@@alantasman8273
James Tour a once brilliant mind, threw his education is the garbage can when he started claiming that Jesus appears in his bedroom for a conversation. He is a member of "Jews for Jesus" and the Discovery Institute --- need to say anymore?
None!
@@alantasman8273 Oh? And what, exactly, has Tour added to the discussion, but weak-minded incredulity: "I can't understand it, so it must be false!" His PhD hasn't added to Tour's ability to understand science, as he just dismisses everything that contradicts his holy book.
@@Sparrow-hawk-666Just do a search on Dr James Tour research, patents and companies he has seeded. There's this thing call the internet and a search engine that might help.
How does cloning work if the information to create the animal lays outside of the DNA?
Skeptics Guide To Scientist Claims ❤
"Molecules don't have a brain." =).
Nuff said! =)
Neither do creos! :)
@@Sparrow-hawk-666if creos don't have a brain, evo failed them! =).
I think Assembly Theory will inevitably lead to a conclusion that life is intelligently designed.
And how would it do that, when nothing else in science has? Tour _et al._ won't even accept assembly theory is valid science! Ultimately a scientific theory is only worth anything if it makes testable predictions that if shown to be false by experiment or other observation, falsify the theory. I don't know off-hand whether assembly theory meets that criterion, or is just a working hypothesis at present, but intelligent design certainly isn't, because it postulates the existence of a being that's inherently unfalsifiable.
Translation: We only accept science when it points to god.