Shocking claim to Macro-evolution!

[Subduction Zone]

Who sez that? Who made that claim?

It appeared to be implied by you. But if that is not the case all you have to do is to admit that common ancestry has be shown to be correct and your only problem is abiogenesis. Can you do that?

 

[tosca1]

Forgive me if I misunderstand your purpose in posting this, but it seems to be a criticism of the theory of evolution because it's not perfectly understood.

If that's wrong I'd be grateful for your correction.

It's about how certain evolutionist scientists grossly extrapolate and peddles "pseudo-science!"
This one is about the Origin of Life (although it's kinda related with evolution - since the same gross extrapolation is also applied on evolution)!

If it's right, then please understand that there are no absolutes in science.

If it's a gross extrapolation - or, outright falsehood - it isn't real science.

So Mr Tour's remarks are hardly Shock Horror! headlines ─ rather, steps in the education of Mr Tour.

....more like, the education of the public that has relied blindly on some evolutionists who call themselves scientists.

 

[tosca1]

Yes, that was merely you grasping at straws and demonstrating an ignorance of science.

You relied on a lying source. At least Szostak made an honest mistake and owned up to it. That was a good thing. When you post Tour's retraction then you might be able to claim some legitimacy of what is left of his video. Until he does that the whole thing is garbage.

I gave you sources to back up my claim. You gave none.
Bottomline: Szostak retracted!


Like I said, I don't care for personal opinion.

Bye.

 

[tosca1]

Ok perhaps i should have been more specific, how about "another book" rather than "a book"?

Silent? about evolution? Evolution is beyond doubt. But of course science is silent about irrelevant bullpoop. If Tour thinks it worthy of study then he should produce a scientific paper (not a letter) and offer it for peer review. As yet i see no attempt to engage science in his claim.

If his (future) paper is worthy of science then it will be reviewed, tested and checked. If not then it will be rejected and he can modify his hypothesis and try again. That is how science works.

Silent about his claims!
He practically challenged his colleagues with several questions!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know James Tour's claim must be like a bombshell that just exploded - hence I call it "shocking."

If you mean the part in red in the OP, then that's indeed just that: a claim.

A claim, that is proven false by literally every evolutionary textbook out there.

His arguments amounts to "I don't understand it therefor it is false."

This is a fallacy known as the argument from incredulity.
ie: my evidence against evolution, is that I don't believe it.


Yeah, evolutionary biologists are silent on this particular matter. For the same reason that embryologists also don't feel a need to write up a proper response to proponents of Stork Theory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That does not help you. Unlike creationists Szostak was honest when he made a mistake. Please note that he publishes several papers a year on this topic. He made a mistake in one of them and acknowledged it. The problem is that the fools that you rely on never own up to their mistakes.

To be fair.... it's not like those creationists have any scientific publications out that they even can retract, even if they wanted to...

Kind of hard to retract papers that don't exist, right?

 

[Revoltingest]

Love how they won't believe the vast majority of scientists but if they find one they claim agrees with them then they think his/her word becomes gospel.

Does he even agree?
I've only seen him offer some skepticism with no analysis or specific claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gave you sources to back up my claim. You gave none.
Bottomline: Szostak retracted!


Like I said, I don't care for personal opinion.

Bye.

What you are dong now is borderline lying. Yes, Szostak is honest. He made an error and admitted it. Where does your source apologize for not the errors that he made, but for the clear lies that he spewed out?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's about how certain evolutionist scientists grossly extrapolate and peddles "pseudo-science!"
This one is about the Origin of Life (although it's kinda related with evolution - since the same gross extrapolation is also applied on evolution)!

But your source was shown to be a liar. That does not mean that abiogenesis is proved, but it shoots a huge hole in this thread that you have not been able to address.

If it's a gross extrapolation - or, outright falsehood - it isn't real science.

But once again, Tour was shown to be lying in that regard. Or are you talking about creationism?

....more like, the education of the public that has relied blindly on some evolutionists who call themselves scientists.

Now now, let's not lie about others. That is not very polite. If you do not understand the science you should ask. But once again your source was shown to be a liar.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's your opinion.....and, it's irrelevant!

Tour is challenging his colleagues to refute his claim.
He's taking on the science community!
That's the point!

What I wrote is very relevant. Abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different fields of study that involve entirely different processes, and Tour's challenge isn't really much of a challenge - just an acknowledgement of the current limits of our understanding regarding the origin of early life.

If that's his point, then it's hardly even worth making.

 

[tosca1]

I have the expertise. I am a scientist in the field of thermodynamics and chemical reactions. I have a PhD and two post-docs. While I primarily work in organic biosynthesis and combustion, my training is sufficient for me to explain the fundamentals of evolutionary biology.

And I am a Hindu monist.

If that's the case, why don't you write and refute him? Why don't you explain to him how he's wrong?

There's no sense for you to explain to me since I wouldn't really know if what you explain to me scientifically, is accurate or false! I'm not a scientist.

James Tour has a reputation! I don't think he'll put that reputation at risk by making claims that other chemists can easily challenge and refute.

If you think you can answer his challenge - then, by all means - direct it to him.

 

[tosca1]

What I wrote is very relevant. Abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different fields of study that involve entirely different processes, and Tour's challenge isn't really much of a challenge - just an acknowledgement of the current limits of our understanding regarding the origin of early life.

If that's his point, then it's hardly even worth making.

You're not getting the point. It's not really about abiogenesis and evolution.

It's more about the falsehoods and pseudo-science that's being given to the public that he's challenging!

He's challenging those claims!

 

[Revoltingest]

Some people are now trying to smear James Tour. here are allegations of his so-called lying - which are debunked.

Well, I'm not trying to smear him.
But I've found no specific claims he's made.
What do you see?

 

[blü 2]

It's about how certain evolutionist scientists grossly extrapolate and peddles "pseudo-science!"

Can you give me an example? Evolution is mainstream science these days, the overarching frame of biology, and its essentials are not only unrefuted, they're not under any critical pressure at all. Details here and there are matters of debate, but that's true of all science as we advance.

This one is about the Origin of Life (although it's kinda related with evolution - since the same gross extrapolation is also applied on evolution)!

Again, an example would be helpful. As you say, abiogenesis is a totally different topic to evolution, and at present there's no demonstrated path from chemistry to living biochemistry, but there have been steady advances, and I expect to see such a path demonstrated in my lifetime.

If it's a gross extrapolation - or, outright falsehood - it isn't real science.

I guess a 'gross extrapolation' is something we know when we see it, rather than a definable state, but this is why specific examples are helpful.

 

[tosca1]

Well, I'm not trying to smear him.
But I've found no specific claims he's made.
What do you see?

I don't mean you. There are some people (outside this forum) that tries to smear him. Read the letter to his colleagues.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If that's the case, why don't you write and refute him? Why don't you explain to him how he's wrong?

There's no sense for you to explain to me since I wouldn't really know if what you explain to me scientifically, is accurate or false! I'm not a scientist.

James Tour has a reputation! I don't think he'll put that reputation at risk by making claims that other chemists can easily challenge and refute.

If you think you can answer his challenge - then, by all means - direct it to him.

You posted a video without making any specific claims. I posted a video that showed how he lied. You won't bring up any specific claims from your video that makes it unnecessary for me to make any particular quotes from my video, all I need to do is to point out how Hurd proved that Tour was a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're not getting the point. It's not really about abiogenesis and evolution.

It's more about the falsehoods and pseudo-science that's being given to the public that he's challenging!

He's challenging those claims!

And he was shown to be wrong.

Do you need me to use all sorts of green ink to make you understand that? If anything he was the one that made falsehoods.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're not getting the point. It's not really about abiogenesis and evolution.

It's more about the falsehoods and pseudo-science that's being given to the public that he's challenging!

He's challenging those claims!

My post that you were responding to WAS about abiogenesis and evolution and your conflation of the two - something that demonstrates that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

With that in mind, I'm not sure I trust your evaluation of Tour's position. Why not explain exactly what falsehoods and pseudo-science Tour is explicitly challenging?

 

[tosca1]

Can you give me an example? Evolution is mainstream science these days, the overarching frame of biology, and its essentials are not only unrefuted, they're not under any critical pressure at all. Details here and there are matters of debate, but that's true of all science as we advance.
Again, an example would be helpful. As you say, abiogenesis is a totally different topic to evolution, and at present there's no demonstrated path from chemistry to living biochemistry, but there have been steady advances, and I expect to see such a path demonstrated in my lifetime.
I guess a 'gross extrapolation' is something we know when we see it, rather than a definable state, but this is why specific examples are helpful.

READ the articles given. I've already provided the source - I can't spoon-feed.

He posed questions challenging claims!

Tell me which ones you disagree with, and come up with a source that refutes it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't mean you. There are some people (outside this forum) that tries to smear him. Read the letter to his colleagues.

.Did they smear him or tell the truth about him? In his video he made mistakes that a sophomore chemistry major would not make.