• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dr James Tour says he doesn't understand macroevolution

Helix said:
i already did. microevolution multiplied by time equals macroevolution. here's another useful link :

Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
Your post rather proves HIS point.

YOU want to tell THIS GUY...

"Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents."

...that while it is solely presented as THEORY your answer and PROOF of the macroevolutionary process is THIS source...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life...a source REPLETE with phrases like "could have" "possibly" "may have" "probably" "suggests" "suggestive of" and a labeling of complex events which consist of saying THAT they occurred, and not HOW they occurred. ALL while citing this as "current scientific theory"...theory which no scientist would espouse as FACT and yet the converts and true believers here absolutely do.

Like I said. You make his point.

He doesnt say it isnt real or cant exist...merely that the many scientists he has polled that DO espouse a belief in it cant explain it. Much like...well...all the people rushing in to proclaim their "knowledge" as superior to...this guy...

"Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents."
 
American said:
Good, then you won't mind providing the explanation I asked for.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's not that complicated.

The particular arrangement of nucleotide base pairs in our DNA, known as an organism's genotype, defines the development of an organism's biological structures - known as an organism's phenotype.

So, the difference between, say, a horse's body (its phenotype) and, say, a snake's body (its phenotype) can be traced to differences in the arrangement of nucleotide base pairs in their respective DNA (their genotypes).

During reproduction, random mutations in the arrangement of nucleotide base pairs can occur (ie a change in genotype). We'll call the old one genotype A and the new one genotype B. A difference in genotype may result in a difference in phenotype. We'll call the old one phenotype A and the new one phenotype B.

If the change in Phenotype B is such that it improves the organism's ability to reproduce (compared to phenotype A's ability to reproduce), it's reasonable to expect to see a greater occurrence of Phenotype B relative to Phenotype A over time. Over a long enough period of time Phenotype A may go completely extinct, leaving only Phenotype B. This is known as natural selection.

During reproduction the organism might again experience random mutations - resulting in Genotype/Phenotype C. Rinse and repeat. After many, many generations (and many many subsequent changes in nucleotide base pairs) we might end up with Genotype/Phenotype ZZYZX. It's possible that Genotype ZZYZX might have a different enough phenotype that it is no longer able to successfully mate with Phenotype A. This would be considered speciation, an example of your "macroevolution".

Now, stop relying on Tours to do your thinking for you and try it on your own. Do YOU understand my explanation? Are there any points you would like to dispute or need clarification on?
 
American said:
Yeah that's it. You could probably blow him away like a kindergartener.
Click to expand...
He's the one up there in the big PhD leagues, he shouldn't need someone like Dawkins (or whoever) to hold his hand through the tough parts.




PS
I referred you - and him - to Dawkins, never myself, so don't put words in my mouth.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Your post rather proves HIS point.

YOU want to tell THIS GUY...

"Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents."

...that while it is solely presented as THEORY your answer and PROOF of the macroevolutionary process is THIS source...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life...a source REPLETE with phrases like "could have" "possibly" "may have" "probably" "suggests" "suggestive of" and a labeling of complex events which consist of saying THAT they occurred, and not HOW they occurred. ALL while citing this as "current scientific theory"...theory which no scientist would espouse as FACT and yet the converts and true believers here absolutely do.

Like I said. You make his point.

He doesnt say it isnt real or cant exist...merely that the many scientists he has polled that DO espouse a belief in it cant explain it. Much like...well...all the people rushing in to proclaim their "knowledge" as superior to...this guy...

"Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents."
Click to expand...
It's no use, they're just a bunch of lemmings. Helix claims to be a scientist and can't even give me a scientific answer.
 
American said:
So your answer is that he's too ****ing stupid to asked the right questions because he's not a biologist?
Click to expand...
Stupid? Not at all. He is asking the wrong questions though - and he is asking them of the wrong people (other chemists).

Macroevolution = microevolution + time. You have no idea if that would answer Dr Tours questions or not, since you do not know him, and you are simply making assumptions about his responses. You are essentially borrowing his authority to argue your own level of ignorance.
 
iangb said:
Stupid? Not at all. He is asking the wrong questions though - and he is asking them of the wrong people (other chemists).

Macroevolution = microevolution + time. You have no idea if that would answer Dr Tours questions or not, since you do not know him, and you are simply making assumptions about his responses. You are essentially borrowing his authority to argue your own level of ignorance.
Click to expand...

I think he could safely look that up on wikipedia, so I don't think I'm making an assumption. Thanks for the personal attack.
 
American said:
I think he could safely look that up on wikipedia, so I don't think I'm making an assumption. Thanks for the personal attack.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a personal attack, it was a statement of fact. Any answer we could give, you can respond to with "Oh, that's a simple answer, I'm sure he would know that already". However, you don't know that, nor can you explain why, if he knows that explanation, he is (apparently) still not content with it. As such, you are using his authority to deflect any criticisms of your arguments - since it is you who have made the OP, even if you've quoted someone else to do much of the talking in it.

Since you are using his authority to deflect arguments against your position rather than counter the arguments directly, the only assumption I can make is that you do not have the knowledge necessary to counter them yourself. Hence, using his authority to defend your own ignorance.
 
Tour clearly states that he is ignorant of how evolution works and replaces that ignorance with God. Many have done that but just because they have a science background doesn't make them an expert in another area of science. (I think that when Tour says evolution scientists use archeology was funny).
 
American said:
And Dawkins has what to do with the chemistry of macroevolution? Just asking.
Click to expand...

Why do you think the chemistry of macroevolution is different from the chemistry of microevolution? Why do you think there's a difference at all? Is it because creationists invented the term "microevolution" and you assumed it must be accurate to differentiate the two?
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Why do you think the chemistry of macroevolution is different from the chemistry of microevolution? Why do you think there's a difference at all? Is it because creationists invented the term "microevolution" and you assumed it must be accurate to differentiate the two?
Click to expand...

Apparently Tour thinks there's a difference.
 
American said:
Apparently Tour thinks there's a difference.
Click to expand...

Well then he's a moron. I mean, seriously, two separate chemical mechanisms for "micro" and "macro" evolution? What, like nature makes a distinction between the two?
 
The OP is citing 'Uncommon Descent', a crackpot ID website
ID is a Discredited idea, the illegitimate 'son-of-creationism'.

What Tour is speaking of is Not necessarily Disagreement, it's Ignorance/incomprehensiblity.
He is Not a Biologist.
His own words:

James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation

Evolution/Creation

Layman’s Reflections on Evolution and Creation. An Insider’s View of the Academy​

Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do NOT have anything Substantive to say about it.
I am a layman on the subject.
Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am NOT Qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please don’t ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.

I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am Not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label.
[...........]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Why do you think the chemistry of macroevolution is different from the chemistry of microevolution? Why do you think there's a difference at all? Is it because creationists invented the term "microevolution" and you assumed it must be accurate to differentiate the two?
Click to expand...
Creationists didnt invent the term. it was invented in the 1920s along with "macroevolution" by an evolutionist to descibe the difference between short term relation evolution and the trans species 'leaps'. It was used exclusively bey evolutionists for about 30 years. Thats when those 'creationists' started pointing to the flaws in the macro-evolution concept. YOUR response BTW is the now canned response to the term 'macro-evolution', as is the response that its really just micro-evolution over time. It is a "talking point" found on Dawkins site and others and parroted by people like yourself that routinely regurgitate others. Which makes it really kind of funny...a steady parade of evolutionary 'Dittoheads'.
 
American said:
You are wrong for a number of reasons, and knowing you probably on purpose merely to solicit a response. He says Nobel Prize winning scientists that he has asked, cannot explain the chemistry behind macroevolution. I have no reason to doubt that he said that. You certainly can read up on your own what he said, now can't you?
Click to expand...

Simple answer: he's wrong. They can, and they have. Also there is no 'chemistry' behind macro-evolution, it's just evolution.
 
American said:
Apparently Tour thinks there's a difference.
Click to expand...

He is wrong. Why are you so interested in what this solitary scientist, who by the way is not a biologist, has to say about this? Even if we dragged a dozen (and we could drag 10,000) biologists into this to confirm what others have already said about his statements and misconceptions, would it honestly convince you?
 
See, I don't get this, I can't explain evolution, therefore it's false. He can't explain how God did it, therefore it's true.

Anyone who argues god of the gaps is a ****ing moron.
 
spud_meister said:
See, I don't get this, I can't explain evolution, therefore it's false. He can't explain how God did it, therefore it's true.

Anyone who argues god of the gaps is a ****ing moron.
Click to expand...

Where does he say it's false? What do you know about God?
 
American said:
Where does he say it's false? What do you know about God?
Click to expand...

What are your views on evolution? Why do we have to talk about some other guy's views? It's silly - he's not here to engage in the conversation or rebut responses. But you are. So why are you so uncomfortable discussing your own views of evolution?
 
spud_meister said:
See, I don't get this, I can't explain evolution, therefore it's false. He can't explain how God did it, therefore it's true.

Anyone who argues god of the gaps is a ****ing moron.
Click to expand...
Can you show where he argues it is false or even insinuates it is false? ALL he has said is that no one in the scientific community can explain what they believe. And shockingly...plenty of people HERE 'believe' and regurgitate as 'truth' concepts CLEARLY defined as the 'latest theory'. All fully augmented by "perhaps" and possibly" and "may have" and might" and "could" and "it is believed"...
 
He extrapolates from the people he has asked, to "no-one in the scientific community" A stretch too far. Then he claims they can't explain it to his understanding. That places the problem squarely with him. Those he asked being unable to make him understand doesn't negate the fact and theory of evolution.
 
the_recruit said:
What are your views on evolution? Why do we have to talk about some other guy's views? It's silly - he's not here to engage in the conversation or rebut responses. But you are. So why are you so uncomfortable discussing your own views of evolution?
Click to expand...

Why do you have difficulty staying on topic, maybe you need help with that.
 
VanceMack said:
Can you show where he argues it is false or even insinuates it is false? ALL he has said is that no one in the scientific community can explain what they believe. And shockingly...plenty of people HERE 'believe' and regurgitate as 'truth' concepts CLEARLY defined as the 'latest theory'. All fully augmented by "perhaps" and possibly" and "may have" and might" and "could" and "it is believed"...
Click to expand...

American said:
Where does he say it's false? What do you know about God?
Click to expand...

The point of this thread is to cause doubt in the theory of evolution to make people consider intelligent design. It's not a thread to discuss the gaps in evolutionary theory.

And what do I know of God? I know that His powers are steadily shrinking, 500 years ago he created people out of dust, today, he only guided a natural process. Intelligent design is intellectual dishonesty and theological cowardice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom