• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Shocking claim to Macro-evolution!

tosca1

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

I have spoken at length with biologists, philosophers of science, mathematicians and geneticists in order to better understand evolution. Some were gracious in helping me to appreciate their positions based upon the data. Others were less gracious, though they supplied me with voluminous material to read. Here are some of the things that I learned.
Therefore, I do not understand the mechanisms needed to change body plans or the mechanisms along the descent pathway between the australopithecine brain and modern human brains if we were indeed commonly descended as predicted by the theory of universal common descent. Nobody else understands the mechanisms either. Nobody. But I am saying it publicly, hence the arousal of some toward my open comments of skepticism. Recall, evolution is both about the mechanism by which change occurs over time, and the theory of universal common descent. But the mechanisms are unknown and the theory of universal common descent is confronted by issues of uncommonness through ENCODE and orphan gene research. And each year the evidence for uncommonness is escalating.
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 M. Tour is an American synthetic organic chemist, specializing in nanotechnology. Tour is the T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering, and Professor of Computer Science at Rice University in Houston, Texas, United States.

Tour was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015.[41] He was named among "The 50 most Influential Scientists in the World Today" by TheBestSchools.org in 2014.[42]

Tour was named "Scientist of the Year" by R&D Magazine in 2013.[43] Tour won the ACS Nano Lectureship Award from the American Chemical Society in 2012.

Tour was ranked one of the top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade by Thomson Reuters in 2009.
That year, he was also made a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Other notable awards won by Tour include the 2008 Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology, the NASA Space Act Award in 2008 for his development of carbon nanotube reinforced elastomers, the Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award from the American Chemical Society (ACS) for his achievements in organic chemistry in 2007, the Small Times magazine's Innovator of the Year Award in 2006, the Southern Chemist of the Year Award from ACS in 2005, the Honda Innovation Award for Nanocars in 2005, the NSF Presidential Young Investigator Award in 1990, and the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award in 1989.
In 2005, Tour's journal article "Directional Control in Thermally Driven Single-Molecule Nanocars" was ranked the Most Accessed Journal Article by the American Chemical Society.[44] Tour has twice won the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching at Rice University in 2007 and 2012.
James Tour - Wikipedia








 

tosca1

Member
James Tour wasn't content with that blog. He also penned an open letter to his colleagues. Here's an excerpt from it:


An Open Letter to My Colleagues

James Tour

Life should not exist. This much we know from chemistry. In contrast to the ubiquity of life on earth, the lifelessness of other planets makes far better chemical sense. Synthetic chemists know what it takes to build just one molecular compound.
The compound must be designed, the stereochemistry controlled. Yield optimization, purification, and characterization are needed. An elaborate supply is required to control synthesis from start to finish. None of this is easy. Few researchers from other disciplines understand how molecules are synthesized.

-------

If one understands the second law of thermodynamics, according to some physicists,15 “You [can] start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant.”16 The interactions of light with small molecules is well understood. The experiment has been performed. The outcome is known. Regardless of the wavelength of the light, no plant ever forms.


We synthetic chemists should state the obvious. The appearance of life on earth is a mystery. We are nowhere near solving this problem. The proposals offered thus far to explain life’s origin make no scientific sense.

Beyond our planet, all the others that have been probed are lifeless, a result in accord with our chemical expectations. The laws of physics and chemistry’s Periodic Table are universal, suggesting that life based upon amino acids, nucleotides, saccharides and lipids is an anomaly. Life should not exist anywhere in our universe. Life should not even exist on the surface of the earth.1
https://inference-review.com/article/an-open-letter-to-my-colleagues#endnote-17
An Open Letter to My Colleagues – James Tour – Inference
 

tosca1

Member
You might say that I'm fascinated by James Tour! He's actually taking on the science community (evolutionists), and challenging them!


According to a nationwide survey, more than two-thirds of atheists and one-third of agnostics believe that “the findings of science make the existence of God less probable,” while nearly half of self-identified theists believe “the findings of science are neutral with regard to the existence of God.”
But what if there is another option? What if the discoveries of science actually lend support to belief in God?

Taped at the 2019 Dallas Science and Faith Conference at Park Cities Baptist Church in Dallas sponsored by Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.
Discovery Science, Mar 2019

Origin of life at timer - 8:26






The field hasn’t advanced an inch in 60-plus years. “Everyone’s clueless on this but no one wants to admit it.” Great scientists writing in the highest profile science journals are “lying to you” when they assert otherwise. “Show me the chemistry” of abiogenesis, he says. “It’s not there.”


Jim Tour is without parallel. Truly, I’d love to hear from our materialist critics how they would answer any of this.
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/04/c...me-the-chemistry-of-abiogensis-its-not-there/
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
You might say that I'm fascinated by James Tour! He's actually taking on the science community (evolutionists), and challenging them!



Discovery Science, Mar 2019







https://evolutionnews.org/2019/04/c...me-the-chemistry-of-abiogensis-its-not-there/
Yes, I don't know what Tour is playing at here. Saying that the chemistry of abiogenesis is not worked out is a statement of the obvious that nobody would disagree with.

Equally, as he must know full well, this has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

The theory of evolution does not rely on any assumptions about chemistry!
 

tosca1

Member
And why should we care about the personal opinion of a nanotechnologist and chemist against the overwhelming scientific consensus and evidence?

And where's the connection between his claims about abiogenesis and evolution?

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!:)
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Others were less gracious, though they supplied me with voluminous material to read.
Oh noes they asked him to read something.

I have spoken at length with biologists, philosophers of science, mathematicians and geneticists in order to better understand evolution.
...in order to avoid reading something.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
James Tour wasn't content with that blog. He also penned an open letter to his colleagues. Here's an excerpt from it:


An Open Letter to My Colleagues – James Tour – Inference
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.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Lol. It's not a personal opinion! It's science.
Whenever someone talk about anything outside his or her fields of expertise, then it is matter of personal opinions, not science.

And while nanotechnology have both science and engineering working together, it is still more engineering than science.

In fact all of computer science, is most engineering, whether it be hardware or software oriented.

Edit:

ps

Before you go and all-high-and-mighty, and say “That’s kind of response of an evolutionist”, I would tell you point-blank that I am not a biologist. I am speaking from experiences as an engineer, with a backgrounds in civil engineering and in computer science.

And as to Tour. He isn’t quantify to speak of biological evolution, so anything he has to say, are opinions. He may be a qualified as a chemist, but not all chemist are expert in the areas of biochemistry, especially in the areas of Abiogenesis. If he isn’t a biochemist, then he is merely expressing his opinions.
 
Last edited:

tosca1

Member
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.

Read it again. You missed something.
 

tosca1

Member
Whenever someone talk about anything outside his or her fields of expertise, then it is matter of personal opinions, not science.

He is a chemist, you know. He is among the top 10 chemists in the world!

You didn't know that he's a chemist?
So....you haven't even read the intro? Lol.
In other words, you know squat!
Therefore, I have legitimate reason to ignore you.


Bye.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
how could there be any evolution without the origin?
Nobody would be so stupid as to say that, because we don't yet understand the detail of how life started, life never started. Would they?

Evolution is the theory of how, once there is a mechanism for reproducing with inheritance, later species evolved from earlier ones.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Yes, I don't know what Tour is playing at here.
!

Seriously? He is playing you, or anyone who
will respond.

Typical of people who dont know a darn thing
except how to cut n paste s gish from creosites,
no grasp of any subject matter.

It is nice to have a little quality around here.
Gish-enabling aint it.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
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







The excerpts don't actually provide any argument against evolution or abiogenesis.
But he sounds highly qualified in some other field.
Ref....
James Tour - Wikipedia
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism[edit]
Further information: A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
In February 2006, The New York Times reported[37] that Tour was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers among five hundred scientists and engineers whose names appear on Discovery Institute's controversial petition, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", which states "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."[45] The two-sentence statement has been widely used by its sponsor, the Discovery Institute, and some of their supporters in a national campaign to discredit evolution and to promote intelligent design.

The New York Times article described Tour as saying that the explanations offered by evolution are incomplete, and he found it hard to believe that nature can produce the machinery of cells through random processes. Despite this, he said he remained open-minded about evolution. He was quoted as saying "I respect that work" and being open to the possibility that future research will complete the explanations.[37]
 
Last edited:
Top