Abiogenesis and evolution: James Tour

@moonbus said
That is the proper explanation.

@kellyjay

If you are still not satisfied that that is the proper explanation of what is going on (i.e., chemical reactions) and you and to know about electrons and valences, then ask a chemist; Pondy probably knows how the electrons and valences work at the next lower level.

@moonbus said
@kellyjay

If you are still not satisfied that that is the proper explanation of what is going on (i.e., chemical reactions) and you and to know about electrons and valences, then ask a chemist; Pondy probably knows how the electrons and valences work at the next lower level.

Show that what you claim he said isn't true, very simple just do that, he said something you said something, prove it. The matter of error checking is a no-brainer and you seem to be stuck on that as if error checking cannot be done in a biological system, I guess if you think everything is done without purpose I imagine that is the only way you can justify that.

Since there are tasks that are necessary for life to be protected from error, that isn't the case, so again another one of your statements of faith you have not justified only claimed with it seems no intention of very giving any reason to prove your assertion. You can claim anything to be true as long as you have no intention of having to give cause, or justification for your statements about how, quite unscientific of you, to bring in your worldview without making any effort into justifying it.

@moonbus said
@kellyjay

If you are still not satisfied that that is the proper explanation of what is going on (i.e., chemical reactions) and you and to know about electrons and valences, then ask a chemist; Pondy probably knows how the electrons and valences work at the next lower level.

I just want to point out that Tour is a chemist, and you are at odds with him, so much for your "ask a chemist" statement. You did listen to Dr. Tours' degrees and accomplishments, at the beginning of the link, you know the guy you are at odds with!?

@kellyjay said
I just want to point out that Tour is a chemist, and you are at odds with him, so much for your "ask a chemist" statement. You did listen to Dr. Tours' degrees and accomplishments, at the beginning of the link, you know the guy you are at odds with!?

'I can't defend my own position but here's someone really clever who thinks like I do.'
I mean really? The guy's free to believe whatever he wants, as are you, but as soon as you introduce supernatural causation into the equation the science becomes pointless, since it works on a pre assumption of supernatural powers. Pure science begins with no assumption, that's how we learn about the world around us. 'Look what god did' just doesn't cut the mustard.

@kellyjay said
Show that what you claim he said isn't true, very simple just do that, he said something you said something, prove it. The matter of error checking is a no-brainer and you seem to be stuck on that as if error checking cannot be done in a biological system, I guess if you think everything is done without purpose I imagine that is the only way you can justify that.

Since t ...[text shortened]... quite unscientific of you, to bring in your worldview without making any effort into justifying it.

"Enzymes check it, and if it's not right another enzyme comes and ..."

False. Factually in error. There is no right or not-right. There is just a chemical reaction, or there is some other chemical reaction instead; right and not-right have nothing whatever to do with it. If you or Prof. Tour think there is something else going on beyond a chemical reaction, the burden of proof is on you, or Prof. Tour, to provide evidence of it.

@kellyjay said
I just want to point out that Tour is a chemist, and you are at odds with him, so much for your "ask a chemist" statement. You did listen to Dr. Tours' degrees and accomplishments, at the beginning of the link, you know the guy you are at odds with!?

Ask another chemist. Tour is at odds with facts. One does not need a degree in chemistry to see that.

@moonbus said
Ask another chemist. Tour is at odds with facts. One does not need a degree in chemistry to see that.

You are at odds with a chemist! You got nothing other than suggesting others disagree with the points you claim he is wrong at, so produce these chemists and how they view error checking! Let's see your other chemists show how error checking is not done in biology, showing me I'm wrong and you are right. Show other chemists in actual quotes in text or links how Tour got what he said about enzymes wrong!

You are long on talk, just short on producing anything to back up your points, well you have not produced anything other than a lame attempt at bringing in God to avoid your shortcomings in this discussion.

Come on moonbus, stop avoiding showing everyone your evidence, your arguments, other chemists' writings, or links that talk about error checking not being biological or how enzymatic activity isn't involved in feedback loops and error checking.

They don't all agree on everything, I doubt you find a single topic that is true.
Here is another I think you will equally ignore which I have brought up in the past.
Got your dodge ready?

YouTube

If you are going to say things like Tour is at odds with the facts, then for crying out loud produce the stinking facts you are claiming he is at odds with AGAIN, please put up something outside of your "opinion" or just go away and hide, you can pretend as if your so-called facts that you never produced exist outside of your imagination, you can pretend that you showed me, how he and I are wrong without ever showing what is right.

@moonbus said
"Enzymes check it, and if it's not right another enzyme comes and ..."

False. Factually in error. There is no right or not-right. There is just a chemical reaction, or there is some other chemical reaction instead; right and not-right have nothing whatever to do with it. If you or Prof. Tour think there is something else going on beyond a chemical reaction, the burden of proof is on you, or Prof. Tour, to provide evidence of it.

He is the expert you are claiming is wrong, prove it.

@indonesia-phil said
'I can't defend my own position but here's someone really clever who thinks like I do.'
I mean really? The guy's free to believe whatever he wants, as are you, but as soon as you introduce supernatural causation into the equation the science becomes pointless, since it works on a pre assumption of supernatural powers. Pure science begins with no assumption, that's how we learn about the world around us. 'Look what god did' just doesn't cut the mustard.

It is clearly a point where mindlessness is not up for the task, now you can jump to the supernatural, but clearly, the only point that is unavoidable, is more than a mindless process is required.

@kellyjay said
He is the expert you are claiming is wrong, prove it.

Isn’t your Dr Tour supporting a “spiritual” viewpoint of creation?

Simple question which you can’t or won’t answer.

@kellyjay said
It is clearly a point where mindlessness is not up for the task, now you can jump to the supernatural, but clearly, the only point that is unavoidable, is more than a mindless process is required.

So James Tour is saying that there is a mind which has driven life on earth.

Is this a “spiritual” mind?

@kellyjay said
He is the expert you are claiming is wrong, prove it.

Moonbus is asking for evidence, what evidence do you or James Tour have to support his assertions?

@kellyjay said
It is clearly a point where mindlessness is not up for the task, now you can jump to the supernatural, but clearly, the only point that is unavoidable, is more than a mindless process is required.

All Gods, including the God that you happen to believe in, have one thing in common; they don't exist outside the imagination of people, they are not a part of any natural process, and are therefore by definition 'supernatural'. Aside from your pretend scientist, the only one here 'jumping' to a supernatural explanation for anything is you, and the only thing which is 'clear' is that your understanding of nature is not sufficient to make crass statements such as this.

@KellyJay

Please note the following article (just by way of example):

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01847-8

That is what real science looks like. Peer-reviewed, evidence- and fact-based.

What James Tour presents on youtube is sensationalised pseudo-science, frankly an embarrassment to science.