Common Descent

[watsup]

Let’s take another look at the writings of James M Tour:

“Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. As for many of the details and the time-spans, I personally become less clear. Some may ask, What’s “less clear” about the text that reads, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth”? That is a fair question, and I wish I had an answer that would satisfy them. But I do not because I remain less clear. So, in addition to my chemically based scientific resistance to a macroevolutionary proposal, I am also theologically reticent to embrace it. As a lover of the biblical text, I cannot allegorize the Book of Genesis that far, lest, as Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof said, “If I try and bend that far, I’ll break!” God seems to have set nature as a clue, not a solution, to keep us yearning for him. And if some day we do understand the mechanisms for these macroevolutionary changes, and also the processes that led to the origin of first life, it will not lessen God. As with all discoveries, like when the genetic code in the double-stranded DNA was discovered, they will serve to underscore the magnanimity of God.
As a scientist and a Christian (Messianic Jew), I am unsure of many things in both science and faith. But my many questions are not fundamental to my salvation. Salvation is based upon the finished work of Jesus Christ (Yeshua the Messiah), my confession in him as Savior and my belief in his physical resurrection from the dead. Indeed, the physical resurrection is an atypical example where God works beyond the normally observed physical laws of science in order to accomplish his purposes. Therefore it’s called a miracle. And thanks be to God for his indescribable gift.”

Well waddya know? Turns out that he is just another run-of-the-mill Bible literalist. Has that influenced his scientific viewpoint? It sure looks like it, even though he denies it above.

James M Tour Group >> Evolution/Creation

 

[watsup]

Is that all you can say? :lol:

Have you actually read my source?


CITE the evolutionary biologists that we're supposed to believe!

Lets read what they have to say!



FYI, none of them actually understand what they're talking about :mrgreen:

I am not your Google bitch. Google Stephen Jay Gould and do some reading.

 

[watsup]

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution – Uncommon Descent

I believe the claim of James Tour. You know why?

Because........James Tour has been very publicly vocal about this claim!
He's been throwing challenges all around- challenging the science community to prove him wrong!
oh yeah, he's still at it.

If his claim isn't true - why can't anyone shut him up? :lol:

Yes, I agree, he is quite the grandstander. He makes a lot of noise, like you with your COLORFUL CAPITAL LETTERS!!!!!!!

But noise does not equal truth. Solid scientists use their time to do research and to write papers for other scientists to peer review. Has James Tour ever written any papers on evolution and submitted them to a professional journal for review by scientific peers? Not that I can find. Making speeches diminishing macroevolution in front of friendly audiences such as he would clearly find at the Discover Institute conference on science and faith doesn’t count. Sorry.

 

[watsup]

Lol. He wasn't content to challenge them in his workshops or videos! He penned an open letter!



An Open Letter to My Colleagues

James Tour


An Open Letter to My Colleagues | Articles | Inference: International Review of Science

Open letters do not equal scientific research papers submitted to professional journals for peer review, sorry. It’s grandstanding, like the “petitions” passed around claiming that hundreds of “scientists” are manmade global warming deniers. In terms of how science is actually done, it means nothing.

 

[watsup]

Here's the video of the Dallas Conference in 2019 where-in Tour was described as "on fire!"


"Dr. Tour is one of the world’s top synthetic organic chemists. He has authored 680 scientific publications and holds more than 120 patents (here is a partial list).
In 2014, Thomson Reuters named him one of “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds,” and in 2018 Clarivate Analytics recognized him as one of the world’s most highly cited researchers.

Tour is also fearless. He joined more than a thousand other scientists in signing the “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.” More recently, he has become a thorn in the side of the origin of life research community, offering blunt assessments of the current state of origin of life research."

Read more on this controversy here: Professor James Tour: A “Liar for Jesus”? | Evolution News...




"SCIENCE TO CRITIQUE THE SCIENCE."

It doesn’t matter what he or any of the other “scientists” signed. Science is not done by petition. It is done by solid research and papers outlining that research.

 

[zyzygy]

There is no such thing as scientific dogma.

 

[tosca1]

There is no such thing as scientific dogma.

First of all, it’s not dogma. Dogma means “settled”, as in the God dogma to which you subscribe. Scientists are always open to new information that allows them to update their present understanding of the natural world.

Who do we believe? YOU......................or, your own source?

Your source says it was!


Yoooo hooooo? Did you even read the source you gave us? You think I pulled that "dogma: out of thin air?

Scientists had thought organelles were absent from bacteria and their distantly related microbial cousins, the archaea. Now these findings suggest this polyphosphate storage organelle is present in all three domains of life — bacteria, archaea and the eukaryotes, which include animals, plants and fungi.

" It was a dogma of microbiology that organelles weren't present in bacteria," said researcher Manfredo Seufferheld, a stress physiologist and cell biologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Still, earlier research of his and his colleagues' showed that the polyphosphate storage structure in at least two bacterial species was physically, chemically and functionally the same as an organelle called an acidocalcisome found in many single-celled eukaryotes.

Ancestor of All Living Things More Sophisticated than Thought | Live Science


Why the heck do you give sources that you end up........... disagreeing with?


If your source gives fake information (as you imply) - why on earth would you consider it something credible to support your argument?




Lol. Are you gonna debate your own source now? Wait! Let me get some popcorn......:mrgreen:

 

[tosca1]

Let’s take another look at the writings of James M Tour:

“Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. As for many of the details and the time-spans, I personally become less clear. Some may ask, What’s “less clear” about the text that reads, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth”? That is a fair question, and I wish I had an answer that would satisfy them. But I do not because I remain less clear. So, in addition to my chemically based scientific resistance to a macroevolutionary proposal, I am also theologically reticent to embrace it. As a lover of the biblical text, I cannot allegorize the Book of Genesis that far, lest, as Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof said, “If I try and bend that far, I’ll break!” God seems to have set nature as a clue, not a solution, to keep us yearning for him. And if some day we do understand the mechanisms for these macroevolutionary changes, and also the processes that led to the origin of first life, it will not lessen God. As with all discoveries, like when the genetic code in the double-stranded DNA was discovered, they will serve to underscore the magnanimity of God.
As a scientist and a Christian (Messianic Jew), I am unsure of many things in both science and faith. But my many questions are not fundamental to my salvation. Salvation is based upon the finished work of Jesus Christ (Yeshua the Messiah), my confession in him as Savior and my belief in his physical resurrection from the dead. Indeed, the physical resurrection is an atypical example where God works beyond the normally observed physical laws of science in order to accomplish his purposes. Therefore it’s called a miracle. And thanks be to God for his indescribable gift.”

Well waddya know? Turns out that he is just another run-of-the-mill Bible literalist. Has that influenced his scientific viewpoint? It sure looks like it, even though he denies it above.

James M Tour Group >> Evolution/Creation

IRRELEVANT! :mrgreen:

That's a pitiful attempt at distraction!

If you hadn't noticed - which I know you didn't because we now know you don't read (not even your own source, see post #32) -
James Tour is arguing purely from a scientific angle.

 

[tosca1]

I am not your Google bitch. Google Stephen Jay Gould and do some reading.

Did you or did you not make that claim about biologists worldwide?


Well...........I'm telling you to put your money where your mouth is, and provide something to back your claim up!


As for reading - at least I read your article. You didn't! :mrgreen:
That's why you're in a pickle now. :lamo

 

[tosca1]

Yes, I agree, he is quite the grandstander. He makes a lot of noise, like you with your COLORFUL CAPITAL LETTERS!!!!!!!

Get used to it!

That's what they always end up saying when they can't give any rebuttals!
My fonts and emojis are not the arguments!


F O C U S.

But noise does not equal truth. Solid scientists use their time to do research and to write papers for other scientists to peer review. Has James Tour ever written any papers on evolution and submitted them to a professional journal for review by scientific peers? Not that I can find. Making speeches diminishing macroevolution in front of friendly audiences such as he would clearly find at the Discover Institute conference on science and faith doesn’t count. Sorry.

Your opinion(s) aren't worth anything......so save your energy, and put it to good use.
Start looking for a source to back up your claim. :lol:

 

[Triton]

I am not your Google bitch. Google Stephen Jay Gould and do some reading.

I don't advise using Gould as a good source for evolutionary biology. A lot of his findings have been challenged by more recent scientists. For evolution, Dawkins is good.

 

[tosca1]

I don't advise using Gould as a good source for evolutionary biology. A lot of his findings have been challenged by more recent scientists. For evolution, Dawkins is good.

Dawkins? Well - there's this accusation by Richard Lewontin:

Although Lewontin wants the public to accept science as the only source of truth, he freely admits that mainstream science itself is not free of the hokum that Sagan so often found in fringe science. As examples he cites three influential scientists who are particularly successful at writing for the public: E. O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and Lewis Thomas, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.

Wilson's Sociobiology and On Human Nature rest on the surface of a quaking marsh of unsupported claims about the genetic determination of everything from altruism to xenophobia.

Dawkins' vulgarizations of Darwinism speak of nothing in evolution but an inexorable ascendancy of genes that are selectively superior, while the entire body of technical advance in experimental and theoretical evolutionary genetics of the last fifty years has moved in the direction of emphasizing nonselective forces in evolution.

The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism





An accusation that mirrors this:

British scientists who mentioned Richard Dawkins during a recent study seem mostly to dislike him, with some arguing that he misrepresents science and is misleading the public.

British scientists don't like Richard Dawkins, finds study that didn't even ask questions about Richard Dawkins | The Independent

 

[Triton]

Dawkins? Well - there's this accusation by Richard Lewontin:




The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism





An accusation that mirrors this:



British scientists don't like Richard Dawkins, finds study that didn't even ask questions about Richard Dawkins | The Independent

I will look into it.

 

[tosca1]

Oy, I didn't know Dawkins and Krauss had a movie titled, THE UNBELIEVERS. With Woody Allen and Cameron Diaz!


It was such a bomb - grossed only $14,000 worldwide - no wonder never heard of it.


The Unbelievers - Box Office Mojo

 

[tosca1]

It doesn’t matter what he or any of the other “scientists” signed. Science is not done by petition. It is done by solid research and papers outlining that research.

:roll:

You should read.

 

[tosca1]

No, it’s not all just “extrapolations.

So you admit it has extrapolations! Thank you.

Most sources given in forums by evolution supporters, are filled with extrapolations.
That's what makes the claim non-credible! It's no longer purely scientific if you extrapolate!
I suppose, that's one way that makes it become PSEUDO-SCIENCE.

 

[watsup]

Who do we believe?[/B] YOU......................or, your own source?

Your source says it was!

Yoooo hooooo? Did you even read the source you gave us? You think I pulled that "dogma: out of thin air?

Ancestor of All Living Things More Sophisticated than Thought | Live Science

Lol. Are you gonna debate your own source now? Wait! Let me get some popcorn......:mrgreen:

You are once again CONFLATING definitions. Here are the various definition of dogma:


dogma:

1an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church.

2a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church:
the dogma of the Assumption;

3prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group

4a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle


You naturally assume the third definition of "unquestionably true" because that is the way that you see your beliefs in the supernatural, so that sort of interpretation immediately jumps to your mind.
But what the article meant was definition #4 whereby it is the explanation accepted by most scientists. That does not imply 100% agreement as science is based in always questioning and trying to further research of the natural world, so different from your total acceptance of the dogma associated with your beliefs.
Please note the difference.

 

[watsup]

So you admit it has extrapolations! Thank you.

Most sources given in forums by evolution supporters, are filled with extrapolations.
That's what makes the claim non-credible! It's no longer purely scientific if you extrapolate!
I suppose, that's one way that makes it become PSEUDO-SCIENCE.

You are going to have to give me the "extrapolations" that you claim that "evolution supporters" are "filled with" in order to continue this particular thread. At this point, I don't know what you are talking about and so I can't give a reasoned reply. And evolution is clearly not "pseudo science". That is quite clear. It has a HUGE amount of evidence, supporting it, unlike your "theistic evolution" whereby you can't actually give any evidence of the "theistic" portion of it.

 

[watsup]

Scientists had thought organelles were absent from bacteria and their distantly related microbial cousins, the archaea. Now these findings suggest this polyphosphate storage organelle is present in all three domains of life — bacteria, archaea and the eukaryotes, which include animals, plants and fungi.

" It was a dogma of microbiology that organelles weren't present in bacteria," said researcher Manfredo Seufferheld, a stress physiologist and cell biologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Still, earlier research of his and his colleagues' showed that the polyphosphate storage structure in at least two bacterial species was physically, chemically and functionally the same as an organelle called an acidocalcisome found in many single-celled eukaryotes.


That was a couple of sentences that you picked from the article from the OP. If you read this carefully, you will find that he does in fact show that the accusations of James Tour made against macroevolution are false in that he claimed that polyphosphate storage organelle is NOT present in all three domains of life — bacteria, archaea and the eukaryotes, which include animals, plants and fungi.
This is from an evolutionary scientist that actually does research, not someone who does critiques as a hobby like the dilettante Tour as regards evolution.

 

[Drawdown]

I find it improbable that the conditions existed to create just one and not a dozen or a billion of the same thing. It seems more probable that there was simultaneous abiogenesis of multiple organisms.

 

[watsup]

I don't advise using Gould as a good source for evolutionary biology. A lot of his findings have been challenged by more recent scientists. For evolution, Dawkins is good.

I used Gould as a foundation for someone who wanted to do some initial reading in evolution because he writes for the masses. Not that reading his books are easy. You have to pay attention and give it thought as you read unlike, say, historical or romantic novels.
And yes, evolution science continues to "evolve", which is what all good science does, but it does not diminish Gould's credentials in that he wrote over 500 scientific papers to go along with his numerous books designed for the general public.

 

[watsup]

I find it improbable that the conditions existed to create just one and not a dozen or a billion of the same thing. It seems more probable that there was simultaneous abiogenesis of multiple organisms.

I can’t disagree with that and I don’t think that is what the evolutionists are saying, but rather than using the plural every single time, they use the term LUCA to indicate the life form that is the foundation of all the rest without claiming how many individuals there were, since obviously they can’t know at this point. I pretty sure they’re not saying that there was just one.

 

[watsup]

If you hadn't noticed - which I know you didn't because we now know you don't read (not even your own source, see post #32) -
James Tour is arguing purely from a scientific angle.

Actually, he is nothing more than a dilettante as regards evolution. Yes, he is a brilliant chemist who has published dozens of papers in that science, but he has published ZERO regarding evolution. That’s because he hasn’t actually done any research in it.

And when he writes about it, it is basically nothing but a blog, not a scientific paper of any sort. Anyway, here is a rebuttal to a primary blog about evolution as written by Tour and rebutted by a Professor of BIOchemistry. In other words, he actually studies the relationship between chemistry and life: Sandwalk: A chemist who doesn't understand evolution

So after you read it, he shows where you can get his email and you can argue with him about evolution. His rebuttal is quite clear and thoughtful and yet easy to read for a non-scientist lay person.

 

[tosca1]

You are once again CONFLATING definitions. Here are the various definition of dogma:


dogma:

1an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church.

2a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church:
the dogma of the Assumption;

3prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group

4a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle


You naturally assume the third definition of "unquestionably true" because that is the way that you see your beliefs in the supernatural, so that sort of interpretation immediately jumps to your mind.
But what the article meant was definition #4 whereby it is the explanation accepted by most scientists. That does not imply 100% agreement as science is based in always questioning and trying to further research of the natural world, so different from your total acceptance of the dogma associated with your beliefs.
Please note the difference.

:roll:

You're barking at the wrong tree, Watsup. You better read your own article!



How many times do I have to say this:




I'm not the one who used "DOGMA!"

It's your source!



I simply quoted the article you gave!







You quoted it too!

Scientists had thought organelles were absent from bacteria and their distantly related microbial cousins, the archaea. Now these findings suggest this polyphosphate storage organelle is present in all three domains of life — bacteria, archaea and the eukaryotes, which include animals, plants and fungi.

" It was a dogma of microbiology that organelles weren't present in bacteria," said researcher Manfredo Seufferheld, a stress physiologist and cell biologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Still, earlier research of his and his colleagues' showed that the polyphosphate storage structure in at least two bacterial species was physically, chemically and functionally the same as an organelle called an acidocalcisome found in many single-celled eukaryotes.


That was a couple of sentences that you picked from the article from the OP. If you read this carefully, you will find that he does in fact show that the accusations of James Tour made against macroevolution are false in that he claimed that polyphosphate storage organelle is NOT present in all three domains of life — bacteria, archaea and the eukaryotes, which include animals, plants and fungi.
This is from an evolutionary scientist that actually does research, not someone who does critiques as a hobby like the dilettante Tour as regards evolution.

Now you know why I have to use large, colorful font! :mrgreen:

 

[tosca1]

Actually, he is nothing more than a dilettante as regards evolution. Yes, he is a brilliant chemist who has published dozens of papers in that science, but he has published ZERO regarding evolution. That’s because he hasn’t actually done any research in it.

And when he writes about it, it is basically nothing but a blog, not a scientific paper of any sort. Anyway, here is a rebuttal to a primary blog about evolution as written by Tour and rebutted by a Professor of BIOchemistry. In other words, he actually studies the relationship between chemistry and life: Sandwalk: A chemist who doesn't understand evolution

So after you read it, he shows where you can get his email and you can argue with him about evolution. His rebuttal is quite clear and thoughtful and yet easy to read for a non-scientist lay person.

You've just shown you're a dilettante when it comes to making claims in a serious discussion. Heck, you don't read at all!
You just look for titles of articles that to you, seems to support your claim! You copy/paste without reading!

Sorry, Watsup - but you've just lost your credibility. :shrug: