Shocking claim to Macro-evolution!

[Subduction Zone]

Did non-life evolve to life which you label abiogenesis?

You are attempting an equivocation fallacy again. That is a fail on your part.

 

[We Never Know]

No, you are asking an improperly formed question and your error was explained to you.

If a simple question you feel is improperly formed, that a fault of yours.
But do tell how it should have been formed

 

[Subduction Zone]

If a simple question you feel is improperly formed, that a fault of yours.
But do tell how it should have been formed

I explained your errors to you. Nothing has changed.

 

[We Never Know]

I explained your errors to you. Nothing has changed.

No you whinned about the question. Big difference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No you whinned about the question. Big difference.

Please don't lie about others. If anything you are whining because you have not been able to reason properly.

I am going to bed soon, but I will correct your posts first thing in the morning. You can troll someone else tonight.

 

[nPeace]

Creationists quite often conflate abiogenesis with evolution. For example Tour's spiel was largely about abiogenesis, at least that was where he was caught lying. The theory of evolution does not rely on natural abiogenesis. It only relies on an abiogenesis event and even creationists believe in that. Since abiogenesis is a separate topic from evolution it is dishonest to move the goalposts to abiogenesis. It is in effect conceding the evolution debate. Evolution works just fine if the first life on Earth arose naturally, or if it was seeded by aliens. Or even if it was poofed magically into existence by a god.

By the way, if you cannot prove that they are making assumptions then you have no business claiming that they did make assumptions. If you think it is tiring for you think how tiring to have this dishonest claim repeated endlessly by creationist that can never explain what these supposed assumptions are. In a debate it is never wise to make a statement that you cannot back up.

The closest relatives of the brown algae include unicellular and filamentous species, but no unicellular species of brown algae are known. However, most scientists assume that the Phaeophyceae evolved from unicellular ancestors

Prior to the discovery of Entelognathus, scientists assumed that the last common ancestor of jawed vertebrates was a shark-like animal, with no distinct jawbones, and that modern jaws evolved in early bony fishes.

Scientists assumed that patriarchy was only natural. Bonobos proved them wrong

Until the 1980s, scientists assumed that hominins had been restricted to the African continent for the whole of the Early Pleistocene(until about 0.8 mya), migrating out only during a phase named Out of Africa

Scientists can only make a lot of these. Science is limited.


I crawled through the one video you are so focused on.
What I found...
Is Nature a/the primary science journal?
Tour's argument seems to me, was to suggest that the article did not meet the standard to be in the journal. He pointed out a few reasons why he felt that way - one was that sugars do not have the chemical compositions mentioned or shown in the article.

Gary Hurd seemed to me, somewhat dishonest. He first claimed that the article in the journal was not a serious paper, and that Tour alluded to it as a primary literature.
Isn't that a lie? Tour referred to the journal as a primary journal - not the article. If anything, Tour would say, "There is garbage in a top journal! Can you believe it!?"

What appears to be Gary Hurd second lie was where he claimed that Tour shouted, "There is no sugars."
Tour said he does not recognize what was proposed as sugars, to be sugars due to their chemical composition.

I may be wrong, but that's what I got out of the video.
Tour apparently apologized for being uncivil - not about his criticism of the paper.
That's one of the things I found likable about Tour - his humility.


This took me a while - my browser is so slow, it's as though my computer has malware.
I'm going to log off and post after I am finished running this task... just to be sure.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This isn't about the existence of God.

Keep telling yourself that.

Personally, I've never seen anyone argue against evolution theory without having a some religious agenda to go along with it.

It is about false claims being made by some scientists (macro-evolution and origin of life).

Mentioning "macro-evolution" as if it is some special sort / type of evolution. Hint number 42 that the author of said statement has fell for creationist propaganda that is either ignorant of biology, but more likely is lying about it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lol. It's your source that could be......lying.
It's highly likely, after all Szostak himself was forced to retract a falsehood he published!

If there's anyone caught giving falsehoods (and embarrssingly admitted to it).....it's Szostak! He's been caught in a lie!
ON RECORD!

So, there!

As a sidenote: do you understand the difference between "a lie" and "a mistake"?
Because it sounds like you don't.

A mistake is what Szostak did.
A lie is what Tour did.

 

[exchemist]

The lectures were on evolution.
It's not about understanding chemistry. How can you say something works a particular way when you don't understand how it works?, is the problem.
You are just making assumptions. It is impossible for you to explain it in reality.

@exchemist by the way, it's not that the thing actually works, and you are seeing it work, but not understanding how it works. You are making an assumption that it works, and making assumptions on how it will work.

Good, so it's about evolution. So let's park the unsolved problem of abiogenesis.

I am pleased to see we both now seem(?) to agree the theory (of evolution) is independent of the choice of any particular biochemistry. As I said in an earlier post, It would be just as applicable to any alien life chemistry one could dream up as it is to terrestrial biochemistry. We do not need to understand the chemical processes at work for it to be valid. Just as we do not need to know anything about atoms and molecules to model the thermodynamics of a heat engine, or electromagnetic induction, or human anatomy, even though how they work they way they do ultimately depends on how atoms and molecules behave.

The core thesis of the theory of evolution is extremely simple. Darwin simply looked at what plant and animal breeders have done for thousands of years, which is to select desirable features in their stock and breed from them, in order to accentuate these traits. He then realised that nature itself would select in a similar way, to accentuate traits that gave a better chance of breeding success. He then theorised that, if this happens for long enough, the organism can change enough to be regarded as a new species. And that's it!

So, once you have an organism (with any internal biochemical processes you like) that reproduces and hands on its traits to the next generation, you will get evolution if there is anything in the environment that gives certain traits a reproductive advantage. It's a natural amplifier, basically. And we have plenty of evidence that this does indeed happen, from fossils, from embryology and from observation in the field (peppered moth, cancer and bacterial drug resistance, etc). None of this evidence relies on any assumptions about biochemistry either. (Though, as it happens, the advent of DNA analysis have given us another independent corroboration of the theory.)

The rest is filling the detail, on DNA, RNA, gene expression, genetic drift etc etc, in other words understanding the highly complex biochemistry in life here on Earth by which traits are handed on from one generation to succeeding ones. Now that is very much a live field of science. We are constantly learning more and revising our models, just as we should.

You can show that a process occurs without understanding in full detail exactly how, as my examples of heat engines, electromagnetism and anatomy illustrate.

 

[tosca1]

Seriously?? Let me enlighten you to the fact that 99.99% of scientists and evolutionary biologists do not care at all about what Intelligence Design advocates are doing or saying....just as 99.999% of geologists and NASA scientists do not care at all about what is being said by the flat earth society in their talks and meetings.

Richard Dawkins and a few (very very few) other scientists who mostly work as science popularizers and educators are exceptions. And anyways, his God Delusion book is his own personal opinion, which he is free to express...but it is not a scientific work in any sense of the term. All scientific books (not popular science ones) have to be published by Academic Press publications (University Press or Springer/Elsevier etc.), where the claims of the books have to go through a thorough peer review before being accepted. A sample of the process is shown here for Elsevier book publications,

Book Authors

You will need to include the following in your proposal:

• Title
• Author(s) and/or editor(s) – Please include the names and background of the author(s) or the editor(s) and, if known, intended contributor(s). A brief curriculum vitae for each author/editor is welcome.
• Aims and scope/background and purpose – This section is the heart of the proposal and should give us a good sense of the purpose and scope of your project. You should take time to be as detailed as possible when writing this part of your proposal. Some of the questions to answer include: Why is this project needed? What will it cover? What will be the level of depth? What is special about the style and approach? What is special about the writers and editors?
• Your intended audience and its needs – Tailoring content and features from the outset to address the needs of a particular audience will help to make it a success.
• What problem does this product solve? – Clearly explain how this content will help readers. How will they use the content in their work? At what point in the researcher workflow does this help them to solve a problem? What problems will this help them to solve?
• Competing resources – If competition to your proposed book exists, responding to the strengths and weaknesses of that competition in what you include will help us to position the book clearly for our reviewers and customers.
• Table of contents – The table of contents should include part or section titles, chapter titles, appendices and anything else that is part of the manuscript. List the chapters in the sequence in which they will appear.
• Sample chapter – Be prepared to produce a sample chapter (or part of a chapter), if asked, to show the level, approach and style of writing of the book.
• Qualified reviewers – Include the names and email addresses of at least three qualified reviewers in your field. Be prepared to rework your outline at a later stage in the light of feedback you may get from us and from our reviewers.
• Clarity and discoverability – Help our reviewers to understand your planned content — and later in the process, potential readers to discover your content - by choosing a working book title, keywords and chapter titles that clearly describe the material you are covering using the most relevant terms.

Unless and until somebody has actually published their claims in such an academic book or scientific journal, no scientist will take notice or care.

Examples of books on evolutionary biology that are academic in nature and goes through this thorough review process are given below,
Primate evolution
Primate Adaptation and Evolution - 3rd Edition

Plant evolution
The Evolution of Plant Physiology - 1st Edition

Fish Evolution
Biology and Evolution of the Mexican Cavefish - 1st Edition

Fossil Plant Evolution
Paleobotany - 2nd Edition

Human Evolution
Human Evolutionary Biology edited by Michael P. Muehlenbein

etc.

So, no. Scientists won't usually care about what other scientists say outside of the academic forums and publications especially designed and curated to disseminate scientific work and scientific ideas.

Let me put you on-track. We're not talking about Intelligent Design, or flat earth! So, there you go.

See what I mean? :roll eyes:

 

[tosca1]

As a sidenote: do you understand the difference between "a lie" and "a mistake"?
Because it sounds like you don't.

A mistake is what Szostak did.
A lie is what Tour did.

Szostak admitted he got carried away by his belief!

“In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief [in our findings]…we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been (and as Tivoli was) in interpreting these experiments,” he said.

Nobel Winner Retracts Own Paper in 'Definitely Embarrassing' Fail | Inverse


A mistake? Scientists cannot afford that kind of mistakes! You can't have sloppy science - because when you do, it's not real science anymore!

Just shows you - zealots also exists among evolutionists, hence evolution is like a religion!

There's a great responsibility that comes with science! You can't just say....'oooops. sorry. I got carried away with my belief! I wasn't as careful or rigorous....."

There are repercussions!

While this retraction helps set the record straight in the scientific literature, it’s not totally clear what this means for the papers that cited Szostak’s paper since it was published.

Nobel Winner Retracts Own Paper in 'Definitely Embarrassing' Fail | Inverse

 

[exchemist]

Let me put you on-track. We're not talking about Intelligent Design, or flat earth! So, there you go.

See what I mean? :roll eyes:

Ah, so if we delete the word "intelligent", are we nearer the mark, perhaps?

 

[tosca1]

Keep telling yourself that.

Personally, I've never seen anyone argue against evolution theory without having a some religious agenda to go along with it.

Agenda?
Hahahaha - tell that to Szostak! And, Richard Dawkins! Hahahaha

Btw....Szostak seems to be making too many retracting lately!

In 2009, Szostak also retracted a 2008 paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences after an outside researcher could not replicate the results. The retraction notice credited Katherine Berry, then a doctoral student at the University of California, Berkeley, for bringing the issues to their attention. (Full disclosure: RW’s Victoria Stern and Berry were roommates freshman year of college).

”Definitely embarrassing:” Nobel Laureate retracts non-reproducible paper in Nature journal

 

[sayak83]

Let me put you on-track. We're not talking about Intelligent Design, or flat earth! So, there you go.

See what I mean? :roll eyes:

It's clear that you are not here for any serious discussion. When you are interested, ping me.

 

[tosca1]

It's clear that you are not here for any serious discussion. When you are interested, ping me.

Are you kidding? The following isn't directed at you personally - it's just my over-all comment.

Lol. My sense of humor gets the better of me when I see so many here getting all excited and squawking like chickens running around with their heads cut off.
You folks are all over the place - intelligent design, God's existence, James Tour's alleged lies, my colourful fonts, my inabiity to understand science, etc... - except, dealing with the issue given in the first two posts!

How come no scientists had come and publicly refute James Tour? I've asked that!

If there are any refutations from any scientists that you know of (which I might've missed), I asked you to post them here as refutation! REFUTE WHAT HE'S CLAIMING IN THOSE ARTICLES!



Lol. I didn't ask you folks to put on your scientist hat and start sounding like scientists, spouting off science stuff!

Lol, how can folks be believable with you all spouting scientific stuffs - when a lot of you can't even read and comprehend a simple OP?
If you can't comprehend a simple material - you definitely cannot comprehend a complex one! That's just simple logic!

And, I'd be the bigger fool if I take all your opinion and posturing, seriously!

 

[dfnj]

It's funny how people frame this debate. Why can't evolution be true and God also exist? Why does evolution prove God doesn't exist?

There are really two sides to this discussion. One side is the philosophical materialists who will never accept any kind of vitalism in spite reductionism has shown nothing conclusive on what makes something alive versus inanimate.

If parts of the atom are composed of quarks then at some point when we collide quarks what will they be composed of? It's turtles all the way down. And in the sauce what is the essence that makes something alive is lost. Yet the philosophical materialists have very strong faith God and the soul does not exist.

And the other side of the debate religionists think evolution some how is an attempt to prove God does not exist. For the religionists, evolution must be proven wrong otherwise man is no longer divine. I think this is clearly a demonstration of lack of faith in God by the religionists if they think evolution is somehow a threat that needs to be dealt with.

I think God exists, and the creation of the Universe was done for the purpose of having evolution. Unlike machines, life and evolution always creates more than it was ever designed to be or statically thought to be by reductionism.

 

[exchemist]

Agenda?
Hahahaha - tell that to Szostak! And, Richard Dawkins! Hahahaha

Btw....Szostak seems to be making too many retracting lately!



”Definitely embarrassing:” Nobel Laureate retracts non-reproducible paper in Nature journal

Retractions are a fairly standard part of the process of science. People do make mistakes and the honest ones will then make corrections to the record themselves, to protect their reputations, embarrassing though it must be for them. Here is a link to the retractions section in Nature: Retractions | Nature

 

[Polymath257]

Did non-life evolve to life which you label abiogenesis?

No. That is NOT biological evolution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No. The evidence is interpreted in a way that gives support to the presumption of common descent.

So you believe that every species that has ever existed in the fossil record popped fully-formed into existence from nothing before subsequently going extinct, and that later on another species popped into existence fully-formed from nothing that just so happened to look almost identical to the previous species despite sharing no ancestry whatsoever before going extinct itself, and that this process repeated itself over and over again for millions of years for every species on the planet?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are you kidding? The following isn't directed at you personally - it's just my over-all comment.

Lol. My sense of humor gets the better of me when I see so many here getting all excited and squawking like chickens running around with their heads cut off.
You folks are all over the place - intelligent design, God's existence, James Tour's alleged lies, my colourful fonts, my inabiity to understand science, etc... - except, dealing with the issue given in the first two posts!

How come no scientists had come and publicly refute James Tour? I've asked that!

If there are any refutations from any scientists that you know of (which I might've missed), I asked you to post them here as refutation! REFUTE WHAT HE'S CLAIMING IN THOSE ARTICLES!

But he isn't making a refutable claim, he's simply stating that he doesn't know or understand the mechanisms of evolution. Here's one response from a fellow biochemist:

Sandwalk: A chemist who doesn't understand evolution

Here is an article in which a biology student has made an offer to explain the theory of evolution to Tour, which Tour accepted:

Professor James Tour accepts Nick Matzke's offer to explain macroevolution

You haven't actually presented any argument or scientific study made by Tour to be refuted. It's just him talking vaguely about a field of science he admits he is largely ignorant about and expressing an opinion on it. There really is nothing to refute.