Chemical evolution:

Aha, James Tour. A well-known actor in the creationist charade.

I'm not going to watch a 22 minute video by this character, but I did read, earlier this year, this written piece by Tour: https://inference-review.com/article/animadversions-of-a-synthetic-chemist. which I reviewed on another forum as follows:

" Oh God , not James Tour again.

This guy has done no work in abiogenesis research

Have you done any abiogenesis research?

I haven't watched the video either, probably for similar reasons to yours. But I'll guess that he basically presents a whole collection of still-open questions that any plausible account of the origins of life will need to be able to answer. If that's what he's doing, then it's probably a valuable service in the wider cultural discourse.

It doesn't advance a creationist conclusion, that's true. But it does serve to communicate that abiogenesis research is much farther from explaining the origin of life than laypeople are often given to believe.

I still think that the most intellectually respectable position to take in these matters is agnostic: We Just Don't Know.

Maybe we will in the future, or maybe we won't. I kind of suspect the latter, given that time-travel seems unlikely so we will never be able to go back and observe what actually did happen. (If we did, we would probably contaminate things and throw history off entirely with a giant grandfather paradox.) So the best that science is likely to ever be able to do is generate plausible hypotheses. The problem is that multiple plausible hypotheses are probably possible. Life might have originated in any number of different ways. Different steps in different orders. We will likely never know which one is the true account.

I'm certainly inclined to favor naturalistic accounts of life's origins, but that's because of my preexisting methodological and metaphysical naturalism assumptions. But again, it isn't something that I actually know. It's kind of baked in at the beginning, not unlike the creationists own assumptions.
 
It doesn't advance a creationist conclusion, that's true. But it does serve to communicate that abiogenesis research is much farther from explaining the origin of life than laypeople are often given to believe.
In what way does Creationism serve to communicate anything, other than often misdirected morality? A miracle is equal to a mathematical equation? (E = Mc^2)?
I still think that the most intellectually respectable position to take in these matters is agnostic: We Just Don't Know.
We know what it is NOT! There is no mystical sky-daddy who plays with three fundamental universal values from which he makes EVERYTHING!

The Universe is not a LEGO set, designed by a benign wisdom. It is a dynamical collection of stuff, interacting in accordance to their relational values. This is"demonstrable".

Creationist cannot demonstrate ANYTHING, except faith for which millions of people have given their lives because God told them it was good thing.

I do not call that science, I call that stupid.

p.s. I am not addressing human philosophical tenets which attempt to guide mankind on a path which is compatible with long term survival.
 
Last edited:
Have you been to James Tour's own site where that quote comes from...

https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/
:)
Thanks Foghorn.
Quote from James Tour's own site.
https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

''yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist''
My bold.
Post #90, he claimed to be quoting a personal blog by Laurence A. Moran : https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.html

So, not a Direct Quote
So? Sorry to upset your apple cart dmoe. :p
 
Note : the evolution of complex life from already existing simpler life forms is a different area of real science and does not account for, nor does it address any pathways to explain how those simpler life forms developed from non-living matter in the first place.

...abiogenesis, by its very definition, is not part of any theory on the evolution of any life

https://biologydictionary.net/abiogenesis/
"Abiogenesis is the creation of organic molecules by forces other than living organisms."

https://futurism.com/abiogenesis-theory-origins-life
"Abiogenesis is the origin of life from non-living matter."

and of course, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
"In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds"
I have never inferred that Abiogenesis anything other then Abiogenesis is life from non life, and that evolution then continues that progress of life.
Chemical evolution is fact, and the Universe had hundreds of millions of years to arrive at what it did.
Universal Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer as to how life arose, without fabricating any silly unscientific ID or spaghetti monster of one form or another, to warm the cockles of the hearts of those that need that comforting feeling.
 
A concerted campaign is under way implying that theistic beliefs renders one incapable of rational thinking in other fields. Applied here to the matter of abiogenesis. So cheap. And contrary to the evidence:
Rubbish. The only concerted effort/s are the panic moves from religious orginisations to counter the continued progress of science, as per the OP, and the ultimate fear that their mythical ID hopes will finally be put to bed, once and for all. [not withstanding the fabricated conspiracies that will surely surface :D]
 
A lot of that isn't really coming from the scientists, it's coming from journalists who have somehow inserted themselves between scientists and the people. If we read the actual papers that the scientists in question published, they are often couched in qualifiers that the journalists leave out, like 'maybe' and 'could have'. What the papers are often presenting are hypotheses about some open scientific question, clearly identified as such. The paper may be announcing the hypothesis itself, or perhaps some bit of evidence in favor of a particular hypothesis. Yet it's presented to the people as conclusive, supposedly with all of the social authority of science behind it.
Yes, that is certainly a valid point. Which incidentally is why on most occasions I will also link to the paper and post the Abstract and conclusion.

My confidence in science is declining, I must say. Perhaps that's mostly a function of my having long held an unrealistic and overly idealistic Paddoboyish mental picture of science that was never entirely accurate. So perhaps part of it is my fault and I'm just waking up to reality.
:) Why is your confidence in science declining? Because it has yet to come up with a final theory that could put the ID/magic spaghetti monster to bed, once and for all? That may or may not happen. The point is Yazata [and please excuse me for trying to teach Granny to suck eggs] science has come along way from when we adored mountains, and rivers, and the Sun and the Moon, and to explain the heavens around us, and reasonable assessments as to the evolution of spacetime itself. And by the same token, mostly science and scientists also accept life elsewhere [do you?] but accordingly accept that we still have yet to find any conclusive evidence for such. Why that seemingly contradictory view Yazata?
The current pandemic and the quick fire vaccines that now seem pretty close is another in more recent times and examples Yazata.
Your problem as I see it, is that you probably do accept ID [don't get me wrong, that's OK and your business] deep down. Would that be close to the mark? And maybe the highlighted section applies?
I personally as a lay person, accept science and the scientific method, and understand the nature of science and the many changes and continued progress that ensures, and understand that neither you, or I, or anyone else can ever do without it.
I understand fully that it has not nor will answer all the questions, and that any paddoboyish idealistic ideas of science that you see the need to accuse me of, is probably driven by my forthright dismissal of all that is unscientific and mythical, and how that may apply to your own beliefs.
That along of course with my often mentioned philosophical remark about science being what we know, and philosophy being what we don't know. ;)
 
If that's what he's doing, then it's probably a valuable service in the wider cultural discourse.
Actually what you need to do, is get yourself familiar with how literally this turkey [Tour] takes the bible, and his admittance of probably rejecting any further evidence for Abiogenesis. That along with his "darling" persona by those with fanatical religious convictions.
I still think that the most intellectually respectable position to take in these matters is agnostic: We Just Don't Know.

But again, it isn't something that I actually know. It's kind of baked in at the beginning, not unlike the creationists own assumptions.
What evidence is there for ID, that does not or cannot be explained by current science.
What I do understand is that the Sun and Moon and stars must have been seen as extraordinary entities without scientific explanation for stone age man. I mean seriously, can you imagine such awe for them without science to fall back on?
 
... So much for sensibilities with you. :rolleyes:
...sensibilities...
Like your sensible response to my Post #62 :
In actual fact, it appears to be you, q-reeus and the religiously fanatical Tour, that's conflating the unsupported myth of ID with the logic of extrapolation back to the obvious...Abiogenesis.
In my Post #62, I simply pointed out that that abiogenesis is NOT part of the theory of evolution...that they are two separate areas of Science study.
But, YOU had to immediately make the accusation that I was in some way supporting ID...!
And now you have to show your vast superior intellect by essentially restating what I stated in my Post #62 utilizing toadies pop-science :
I have never inferred that Abiogenesis anything other then Abiogenesis is life from non life, and that evolution then continues that progress of life.
Chemical evolution is fact, and the Universe had hundreds of millions of years to arrive at what it did.
Universal Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer as to how life arose, without fabricating any silly unscientific ID or spaghetti monster of one form or another, to warm the cockles of the hearts of those that need that comforting feeling.
As an aside, is there any difference in meaning between the words inferred and implied, paddoboy?
 
...sensibilities...
Like your sensible response to my Post #62 :

In my Post #62, I simply pointed out that that abiogenesis is NOT part of the theory of evolution...that they are two separate areas of Science study.
But, YOU had to immediately make the accusation that I was in some way supporting ID...!
And now you have to show your vast superior intellect by essentially restating what I stated in my Post #62 utilizing toadies pop-science :

As an aside, is there any difference in meaning between the words inferred and implied, paddoboy?
In actual fact, it appears to be you, q-reeus and the religiously fanatical Tour, that's conflating the unsupported myth of ID with the logic of extrapolation back to the obvious...Abiogenesis.
Bye dmoe!!!!:p

Facts: Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer for how life came to be.

We have no evidence whatsoever in any ID with regards to the universe.
 
Found the following paper of interest, rather then the nonsense by the religiously fanatical James Tour and his supporters.....

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsob.170050
Chemical roots of biological evolution: the origins of life as a process of development of autonomous functional systems:

Abstract
In recent years, an extension of the Darwinian framework is being considered for the study of prebiotic chemical evolution, shifting the attention from homogeneous populations of naked molecular species to populations of heterogeneous, compartmentalized and functionally integrated assemblies of molecules. Several implications of this shift of perspective are analysed in this critical review, both in terms of the individual units, which require an adequate characterization as self-maintaining systems with an internal organization, and also in relation to their collective and long-term evolutionary dynamics, based on competition, collaboration and selection processes among those complex individuals. On these lines, a concrete proposal for the set of molecular control mechanisms that must be coupled to bring about autonomous functional systems, at the interface between chemistry and biology, is provided.



6. Conclusion
In this prospective critical review, we have focused on the first steps of the process of the origins of life, which have important implications for subsequent stages. Ours constitute a non-conventional approach to prebiotic evolution, because it shifts the attention from homogeneous populations of molecules to populations of heterogeneous, compartmentalized and functionally integrated assemblies of molecules. The consequences of such a shift of perspective are multiple, both at the level of the individual units—which require an adequate characterization as self-maintaining systems with an internal organization—and also in terms of their collective and long-term evolutionary dynamics, based on competition, collaboration and selection mechanisms that are in need of further investigation.

The fact that such compartmentalized individuals possess an internal organization allows speaking about function in a physiologically relevant sense, because one can distinguish between parts of the system that contribute in a distinctive way to its maintenance as a whole. Immediate research goals to be targeted, in this context, will be: (i) the implementation of feasible versions of these composite systems, under specific experimental conditions; and (ii) the careful analysis and characterization of the roles played by the various kinds of molecules involved in the integrative process, ascribing functional properties to each of them. In this way, the concept of function has good chances to get naturalized, opening a scientific research programme to discover its deep chemical roots. As a result, new perspectives and theoretical approaches to understand evolvability as a general property of matter, well-grounded in experimental data, should also be brought forth.
 
and further...................

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_chem_2.html

THEORIESOFLIFESORIGIN0.gif


The question of life’s origin has engaged the minds of humans since they first contemplated our place on Earth and in the Universe. The subject often elicits emotion—first because it involves ourselves, and second because biochemists don’t yet have a comprehensive account of the specific steps that led to life on our planet.

A Non-scientific Idea Many people have been raised to accept unquestioningly certain principles, one of which is that life originated by means of a God or gods. The theological or philosophical idea that life resulted from such a supernatural process is a belief. Admittedly, it might be a perfectly good belief, but it remains just that—a belief—for no unambiguous information, acceptable in a laboratory of science or a court of law, confirms the creation of life by a supernatural being or beings. Scientists have no clear data whatsoever supporting the idea that someone or something deposited already-made life on planet Earth long ago. Furthermore, we have no known way to test experimentally the idea that divine intervention created life.

Science is agnostic when it comes to God—not atheistic, as some people prefer to read that laden word wrongly—just agnostic. Aside from personal feelings or cultural persuasions, most professional scientists just don’t know what to make of a God or gods. We simply have no bone fide data on which to base a judgment.

The belief that life suddenly arose by means of some vitalistic process is outside the realm of modern science. Today’s scientific method, which is a means of inquiry based on reasoned logic bolstered by experimental and observational tests, cannot be used to study supernatural ideas for the origin of life. Accordingly, such ideas, unprovable even in principle, seem destined to remain beliefs forever, hence beyond the subject of science.

Three Scientific Proposals Several alternative theories for the origin of life do not require the help of supernatural beings. Each of these theories relies on natural principles and each can be tested experimentally. These theories are thus based on science rather than on theology, and only one of them has thus far survived the test of time, criticism, and debate.

First, life might have originated on Earth by means of panspermia, meaning “germs everywhere.” This idea, also called exogenesis, maintains that microscopic living organisms came to our planet from outer space. An asteroid or comet, perhaps containing primitive cells or simple bacteria, could have fallen to Earth at some time in the past, after which they evolved over billions of years into the more advanced forms of life now spread across our planet. That said, no meteorites—the landed debris of asteroids and comets—have ever been shown to harbor bona fide life.

The basic tenet of panspermia is that primitive life, which originated someplace else, was deposited on Earth’s surface by means of a collision with some other object that already harbored life. However, most space scientists argue that unprotected simple life wouldn’t likely survive the harsh environment of outer space or the fiery plunge into our atmosphere. High-energy radiation and high-speed particles in interplanetary and interstellar space, as well as violent friction and intense heat while moving through air, would almost surely destroy any form of life riding on the backs of small celestial bodies. On the other hand, microscopic spores might survive such alien conditions, provided they’re deeply embedded within the incoming rocks. If biologists have learned anything new about life recently, it’s that life is very hardy and often capable of surviving in extreme environments.
more at link.............
 
In actual fact, it appears to be you, q-reeus and the religiously fanatical Tour, that's conflating the unsupported myth of ID with the logic of extrapolation back to the obvious...Abiogenesis.
Bye dmoe!!!!:p

Facts: Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer for how life came to be.

We have no evidence whatsoever in any ID with regards to the universe.

Again, paddoboy, Please provide Direct Quotes from me, from any of my Posts, where I "appear" to be "conflating the unsupported myth of ID with" anything.
 
The belief that life suddenly arose by means of some vitalistic process is outside the realm of modern science.

The latest (?) from theist who try to explain god to us heathens is he is beyond time and space and unknowable

Scientists say OK, take them at their word and with a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ don't bother looking for evidence

Then get berated for not looking

:)
 
Again, paddoboy, Please provide Direct Quotes from me, from any of my Posts, where I "appear" to be "conflating the unsupported myth of ID with" anything.
Your record on this forum over many years is evidence of how you conflate, confuse, ramble, misinterpret, antagonise over many matters pedantic and otherwise.
I'll leave that judgement call to our peers dmoe. :p
 
The latest (?) from theist who try to explain god to us heathens is he is beyond time and space and unknowable

Scientists say OK, take them at their word and with a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ don't bother looking for evidence

Then get berated for not looking

:)
The real hilarious part is how they can quote and support this James Tour, who has openly admitted in his belief in the literal interpretation of the bible, and does not really care what evidence supporting Abiogenesis may come to light...It will not change his mind. Then he calls it science. :D
Listening to him [in admitted short doses as any more makes me sick] and his "fire and brimstone" like preaching, [reminds me of old Father Patrick, parish priest of the Catholic school I went to :D] gives it away as to his intentions. Old Father Patrick didn't even need the microphone once he started! and St Francis church Paddo was pretty big!! :D
As the old song by Neil Diamond goes, "like a small Earthquake"
 
Chemical evolution is fact

It's a heuristic hypothesis, a hypothesis that helps guide future inquiry. If the hypothesis about the role of chemical evolution in the origin of life turns out to be true, then chemical evolution's role in the origin of life would indeed be a fact. Except that nobody really knows that at this point. If the hypothesis turns out to be false, then chemical evolution's role wouldn't be a fact.

Universal Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer
Abiogenesis just means life from non-life. It's not an answer until a plausible pathway from non-life to life is not only elucidated, but verified as being what actually happened. Until that blessed day, abiogenesis at best names a research program. (And frankly, I don't know how a particular model of the origin of life can ever be conclusively verified without being able to travel back in time and observe.)

as to how life arose, without fabricating any silly unscientific ID or spaghetti monster of one form or another, to warm the cockles of the hearts of those that need that comforting feeling.

Says the guy who can't provide a scientific explanation for the origin of the so-called "laws of physics", for what explains the reality of mathematics, or for why the universe appears to behave logically and rationally. Those just appear to be givens, articles of faith.

It's ironic that in the early modern era of the scientific revolution, it was generally assumed that the laws of nature were analogous to the laws of a state, laid down by its ruler. It was assumed that reality is rational because its creator was rational. Today belief in God has started to disappear, while the "laws" of nature, the truths of abstract mathematics and the logical rationality of reality remain behind like the Cheshire cat's grin in Alice.

The theists obviously can't explain those things either. Their God-premise doesn't seem to be informative, when the goal is to reduce the unknown to the known, not to mystify things by multiplying the unknowns.

The problem is that you and they seem to be occupying a very similar faith-based place, regardless of how violently you insult them.
 
Last edited:
Your record on this forum over many years is evidence of how you conflate, confuse, ramble, misinterpret, antagonise over many matters pedantic and otherwise.
I'll leave that judgement call to our peers dmoe. :p
Again you show your inability to participate in any Truly Honest Conversation.
My Post #62, which says nothing about ID :
If you understand abiogenesis so clearly, then why are you compelled to introduce "evolution" into the equation?
You seem to be conflating an unexplained hypothesis, abiogenesis - life from non-life, and an actual scientific theory that begins with the premise that life already exists.
Yet you responded with Trolling, Casting Aspersions and Accusations - the usual paddoboy MO - according to many of our peers.
My condolences, paddoboy.
 
Last edited:
It's a heuristic hypothesis, a hypothesis that helps guide future inquiry. If the hypothesis about the role of chemical evolution in the origin of life turns out to be true, then chemical evolution's role in the origin of life would indeed be a fact. Except that nobody really knows that at this point.
Disagree totally! We have seen enough of chemical evolution and the experts know enough to be able to logically extrapolate that backwards, as scientists do.
Abiogenesis just means life from non-life. It's not an answer until a plausible pathway from non-life to life is not only elucidated, but verified as being what actually happened.
I find that even more disagreeable coming from someone who does appear educated.
Do we need to achieve a piece of the Sun or another star to understand it operates via nuclear fusion? Do you doubt that scientific principle? It is afterall the only scientific answer.



The problem is that you and they seem to be occupying a very similar faith-based place, regardless of how violently you insult them.
If you have viewed some of the James Tour videos, you would understand that he insults all intelligent beings that prefer science over mythical beliefs.
Is that an insult? Then so be it.
 
Back
Top