Shocking claim to Macro-evolution!

[viole]

Lol. It's not a personal opinion! It's science.

Do you know what "abiogenesis" is? Why do you ask?
Where's the connection? don't you get it?
You gotta have an origin for the rest of the chain!

Nope. In the same way you can have viable theories about star evolution without knowing how stars and the universe originated.

Ciao
- viole

 

[sealchan]

Excerpts from a very long, eye-opener of an article by James Tour.


https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

That's the claim made by one of the leading chemist in the world - James Tour.

Before we go any further, a little background on James Tour.


James Tour - Wikipedia

I disagree that we dont know the mechanism but I would agree that we dont know the full story

I also find it disingenuous when someone says well abiogenesis is a completely different subject from evolution. That's like saying the Jewish Testament has no significant relationship with the new testament.

I think science knows the mechanics of chemistry and biology enough to have a confident view that "evolution did it" for both life and the transition to life. What we dont know is the details of the pathway. What those details, I believe, will show is that we do in fact know the mechanism but we dont know is how that mechanism could support that pathway or, for abiogenesis, what that pathway looks like.

The story of that pathway is like the story of how anything that we have discovered in science or any human technology has emerged. There are almost always interesting twists and turns that make the final outcome seem unlikely and also usually show that no one person or influence is solely responsible.

Everything, then, is much more the product of historical accident than we are used to believing.

 

[Audie]

Ignorance vs science. I vote with science.

It would be so interesting, if someone ever came
up with anything even faintly resembling a legit
argument against even some small facet of ToE!

Childish ignorant ill considered and / or plain
false nonsense sure is not it.

These people who sailing in, energized and
aggressive with a full charge or creocrap pratt
cut n paste are really tiresome. One after another,
virtually identical.

With any luck they soon are satisfied that to have
argued a whole roomful of evos into silence, and
return to creoland to report their glowing success.

 

[Left Coast]

Creationists, you're wasting your energy on the wrong target.

Even if biologists are completely wrong about evolution, that doesn't get us one inch closer to establishing that a god exists or created anything.

You have to actually make an argument for the thing you think created all this, not just poke holes in established scientific ideas. Even if all your criticisms are valid, all we can then say is we don't know how it happened until someone presents a demonstrable, falsifiable alternative that fits all available evidence.

 

[Audie]

Creationists, you're wasting your energy on the wrong target.

Even if biologists are completely wrong about evolution, that doesn't get us one inch closer to establishing that a god exists or created anything.

You have to actually make an argument for the thing you think created all this, not just poke holes in established scientific ideas. Even if all your criticisms are valid, we're simply left with, all we can say is we don't know how it happened until someone presents a demonstrable, falsifiable alternative that fits all available evidence.

Like they have the capacity to poke a hole.

 

[dfnj]

Excerpts from a very long, eye-opener of an article by James Tour.
https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/
That's the claim made by one of the leading chemist in the world - James Tour.
Before we go any further, a little background on James Tour.

God created man through evolution. There's a reason why goldfish have a spine, two eyes, two nostrils, a mouth, and a poop hole. And so do we!!! There's a reason why some ear lobes are attached and some are not.

Any theist who cares one iota about evolution is expressing a lack of faith in their own God. An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake carbon dating and fossil evidence. If the idea of evolution somehow disturbs or shakes your faith in your own religion then become an atheist and keep your mouth closed.

My grandmother used to say in an Edith Bunker like piercing voice, "If you don't have anything nice to say shut your God damn mouth!"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Excerpts from a very long, eye-opener of an article by James Tour.


https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

That's the claim made by one of the leading chemist in the world - James Tour.

Before we go any further, a little background on James Tour.


James Tour - Wikipedia

Just last week a saw a video refuting his claims about Jack Szostak. Tour made mistakes in his video that an undergrad chemistry major would not make. They are well explained in the following video. Reportedly he apologized to Szostak for lying about him in his video:

 

[nPeace]

What a poor contribution to the debate this is.

All he says is that synthetic chemists like him would not be able to construct the building blocks of life in the lab. I think we knew that. But he makes no coherent case for why something he can't do in his lab, in one human lifetime, is something that nature could not do, given a few hundred million years. It is simply the good old Argument from Personal Incredulity.

Even the fact that a synthetic chemist (who is also a Messianic Jew with a religious axe to grind) does not understand how it could have happened does not mean that must be impossible.

Quite an interesting.post.
We can't do it, in a million years, but we assume it can happen in billions of years.
We have no way of testing something we assume can happen, given billions of years, but we assume it's not impossible.
But for one to say it is not possible, they have "an axe to grind".
We can't test the supernatural, but one who says there is evidence, and the supernatural is both probable, and possible, is irrational, to some (not referring to you), and one who dogmatically dismisses the supernatural as imaginary, has no axe to grind - they are rational (again, not referring to you).
Quite interesting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quite an interesting.post.
We can't do it, in a million years, but we assume it can happen in billions of years.
We have no way of testing something we assume can happen, given billions of years, but we assume it's not impossible.
But for one to say it is not possible, they have "an axe to grind".
We can't test the supernatural, but one who says there is evidence, and the supernatural is both probable, and possible, is irrational, to some (not referring to you), and one who dogmatically dismisses the supernatural as imaginary, has no axe to grind - they are rational (again, not referring to you).
Quite interesting.

The problem is that Tour got so much wrong that he loses all credibility. He is a well respected organic chemist. Making sophomore level errors tell us that there is some serious cognitive dissonance going on.

 

[Audie]

The problem is that Tour got so much wrong that he loses all credibility. He is a well respected organic chemist. Making sophomore level errors tell us that there is some serious cognitive dissonance going on.

There is no way to be a creo without at least
risking blinkus of the thinkus (latin for cog dis)

Of course, there is no particular harm in
being ignorant. Millions of people live
honourable lives in third world Catholic
countries, with no idea that the world
of genesis is fantasy.

For those with every opportunity to know
better, but who choose to not just believe but
promote creationist lies,well, there really is not
anything good to be said about them.

 

[nPeace]

The problem is that Tour got so much wrong that he loses all credibility. He is a well respected organic chemist. Making sophomore level errors tell us that there is some serious cognitive dissonance going on.

The problem is, scientist assume that something is possible, without the ability to verify it, and calls it a fact of science. This is what Tour and others point out, among other things. How can they be wrong for doing so?
How does something work, when you have no idea that it does? How is something not just possible, but a fact, when you have no idea that it is even possible?
These are the ones making "a fool of themselves". All Tour and others are doing, is pointing this out.

 

[Milton Platt]

Excerpts from a very long, eye-opener of an article by James Tour.


https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

That's the claim made by one of the leading chemist in the world - James Tour.

Before we go any further, a little background on James Tour.


James Tour - Wikipedia

So you trot out a chemist to give his opinions on biology and genetics???

 

[Wandering Monk]

Looks like our troll has moved on already.

 

[Milton Platt]

Lol. It's not a personal opinion! It's science.

Do you know what "abiogenesis" is? Why do you ask?
Where's the connection? don't you get it?
You gotta have an origin for the rest of the chain!

No, it is an opinion piece and not a research paper.
In what way is a chemist qualified to make declarations about biology and genetics?

 

[Audie]

Looks like our troll has moved on already.

ifn they are not fed, they will leave even sooner

 

[ChristineM]

The problem is, scientist assume that something is possible, without the ability to verify it, and calls it a fact of science. This is what Tour and others point out, among other things. How can they be wrong for doing so?
How does something work, when you have no idea that it does? How is something not just possible, but a fact, when you have no idea that it is even possible?
These are the ones making "a fool of themselves". All Tour and others are doing, is pointing this out.

You dont know much about science and the scientific method do you? What you claim here is nothing more than hypothesis yet you need to make it a fact. That is misrepresentation.

For someone who says god did it, without any evidence or knowledge of conditions or how god did it i do find it hilarious when they attempt to discredit science when they have no inkling of how science works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is, scientist assume that something is possible, without the ability to verify it, and calls it a fact of science. This is what Tour and others point out, among other things. How can they be wrong for doing so?
How does something work, when you have no idea that it does? How is something not just possible, but a fact, when you have no idea that it is even possible?
These are the ones making "a fool of themselves". All Tour and others are doing, is pointing this out.

What makes you think that? That is the sin of creationists, not scientists. What specific actions are they assuming?

If you can't support your claims you only support mine when I say that creationists should never use the word "assume" in any of its tenses. Tour had to lie about a fellow scientist and make gross errors in doing so. You really should watch the video that I linked. It went over specific points in Tour's video and demonstrated his errors. If you have any questions I will gladly answer them.

EDIT: By the way what happened to that thread you started? I cannot find it. We were going to go over the basics and work our way up.

 

[metis]

"Macro-evolution" is simply a byproduct of extended "micro-evolution", so if one accepts the latter they should logically accept the former.

To put it another way, all material objects appear to change over time, and genes are material objects. Therefore, life forms evolve, and this was know with certainty.

 

[ChristineM]

"Macro-evolution" is simply a byproduct of extended "micro-evolution", so if one accepts the latter they should logically accept the former.

To put it another way, all material objects appear to change over time, and genes are material objects. Therefore, life forms evolve, and this was know with certainty.

Or put yet another way, macro-evolution is just lots of micro-evolution

 

[LuisDantas]

Lol. It's not a personal opinion! It's science.

Do you know what "abiogenesis" is? Why do you ask?
Where's the connection? don't you get it?
You gotta have an origin for the rest of the chain!

Not well aware of the theory of evolution, are you?