James Tour's challenge to atheists still unanswered

[paul becke]

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/reality-check-courtesy-of-james-tour/

 

[The Cadet]

Just to be clear, here's the challenge:

…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

...Seems like a bit of a silly challenge, honestly. There have been volumes written on chemistry as it interacts with evolution. If Tour is interested, he could probably start there. However, that said, I don't see the point to the question. We may not know the precise chemical mechanisms behind evolution. So what? The evidence that evolution happens is thick on the ground. At best, this represents an opportunity for a further field of study, not any sort of reason to reject the theory of evolution.

 

[Strathos]

Why is it a challenge just to atheists? Couldn't a theist also understand what he's asking?

 

[Barry Desborough]

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/reality-check-courtesy-of-james-tour/

So Tour doesn't understand evolution, nor does he understand anyone who does.

Classic case of argument from personal incredulity.

And has been pointed out, acceptance of evolutionary science =/= atheism.

 

[pshun2404]

Just to be clear, here's the challenge:



...Seems like a bit of a silly challenge, honestly. There have been volumes written on chemistry as it interacts with evolution. If Tour is interested, he could probably start there. However, that said, I don't see the point to the question. We may not know the precise chemical mechanisms behind evolution. So what? The evidence that evolution happens is thick on the ground. At best, this represents an opportunity for a further field of study, not any sort of reason to reject the theory of evolution.

First off Tours is one the worlds ten most renowned Chemists and you obviously have no idea what the man thinks or believes. He even in this smallest blurb does not ignore or deny "evolution" only "Macro" evolution because there really is no proof at all from a chemical perspective.

Other Chemists (not all) share his view (even some Nobel prize winniers and Laureates) so his challenge stands as reasonable and worthy of an answer other than this vague excuse....

I like the questions "How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” And it is not easy for him to admit publicly "We have no idea." But it is the truth...we do not...

It is simply a paradox that cannot be explained by unguided natural processes. Please note Tours is not a "Creation scientist" nor does he support ID (for he has admittedly seen no proof for that either)...

 

[crjmurray]

I'm gonna recommend this guy as an expert witness on all my defense cases from now on.

"I just don't see how there is a chemical explanation that this individual could be guilty."

"There you have it folks. Our expert witness clearly states that what the prosecution is describing is impossible."

 

[The Cadet]

First off Tours is one the worlds ten most renowned Chemists and you obviously have no idea what the man thinks or believes. He even in this smallest blurb does not ignore or deny "evolution" only "Macro" evolution because there really is no proof at all from a chemical perspective.

There's no proof at all from a chemical perspective that Jupiter is a gas giant.
There's no proof at all from a chemical perspective that the holocaust happened.
There's no proof at all from a chemical perspective that Pluto's orbit is 248 years.

And yet we know all of these things to be true. Hmm. Almost as though chemistry wasn't the be-all, end-all "prove this or die" moment for science. It doesn't matter that we don't have proof "from a chemical perspective", whatever that's supposed to mean; genomic data is a slam-dunk proof of common descent and macroevolution regardless of whether or not we know exactly how each atom interacts.

Other Chemists (not all) share his view

I kinda want to ask for a citation on this, but it really doesn't matter. Chemists do not necessarily know anything about biology. They're different fields. You wouldn't ask a dermatologist to check out your irritable bowel syndrome. James Tour, while an excellent chemist, clearly knows next to nothing about evolution.

 

[Foxhole87]

I've got a PhD in Federation Combat Tactics, so if anyone should understand molecular chemistry, it would be me.

 

[Goonie]

I've got a PhD in Federation Combat Tactics, so if anyone should understand molecular chemistry, it would be me.

Lol

 

[pshun2404]

There's no proof at all from a chemical perspective that Jupiter is a gas giant.
There's no proof at all from a chemical perspective that the holocaust happened.
There's no proof at all from a chemical perspective that Pluto's orbit is 248 years.

And yet we know all of these things to be true. Hmm. Almost as though chemistry wasn't the be-all, end-all "prove this or die" moment for science.

Does Tours say it is? No! He simply says Chemistry does not show Macro-evolution to be true. And as you rightly point out chemistry also does not show the Holocaust to be true. The Holocaust is something that happened and we KNOW it is true, Macro-evolution is something assumed to be true and we have no basis for it other than conjecture and consensus among some (the appeal to popularity)...

Speciation demonstrates clearly that variety occurs and explains how but nothing shows that animals of one genus ever became those of another

ex: Some reptiles and some birds may share some structural characterisitics in common but that does not necessitate one became the other...the people who swallow the mantra whole without question see Archaeopteryx as proof that reptiles became birds because they are told it is proof! But it is not because we have also found (which they conveniently avoid telling you) that we have found avian fossils predating Archae by 75,000 to 100,000 years. A degree of deception OR a bias in interpreting the data via the theory is required to arrive at the "proof" notion....just seeing it is not true (as the evidence demonstrates that we can observe) falsified the notion.

Other so called examples of this alleged creature (all from China) have been shown to be hoaxes....(why, if it was true, would one need to deceive?)

So Tours would say...Micro? Yes! Macro? No! Chemistry shows no mechanism for this process...

 

[Loudmouth]

First off Tours is one the worlds ten most renowned Chemists and you obviously have no idea what the man thinks or believes. He even in this smallest blurb does not ignore or deny "evolution" only "Macro" evolution because there really is no proof at all from a chemical perspective.

The chemical process of DNA replication:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_replication

How chemical mutagens work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutagen#DNA_reactive_chemicals

The chemical process of how mutations occur during DNA replication:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16249340

Those are all the chemical processes you need for evolution. The rest are at the biological or physical level.

 

[Loudmouth]

He simply says Chemistry does not show Macro-evolution to be true. And as you rightly point out chemistry also does not show the Holocaust to be true. The Holocaust is something that happened and we KNOW it is true, Macro-evolution is something assumed to be true and we have no basis for it other than conjecture and consensus among some (the appeal to popularity)...

We do have the basis for accepting evolution as a well supported theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Speciation demonstrates clearly that variety occurs and explains how but nothing shows that animals of one genus ever became those of another

Genus does not exist in reality. It is a human contrivance. There is nothing in nature that says chimps and humans must be in the same genus or in separate genera.

ex: Some reptiles and some birds may share some structural characterisitics in common but that does not necessitate one became the other...the people who swallow the mantra whole without question see Archaeopteryx as proof that reptiles became birds because they are told it is proof!

Then we can add the fossil record to the list of evidences that creationists refuse to deal with.

It's funny that creationists will go on and on about how there aren't any transitional fossils, but do a complete turn around when shown those transitional fossils. In one moment the creationists are using similarities between species, and the next moment they stop doing it.

A degree of deception OR a bias in interpreting the data via the theory is required to arrive at the "proof" notion....just seeing it is not true (as the evidence demonstrates that we can observe) falsified the notion.

Then what would a real transitional fossil look like, according to you?

[qutoe]Other so called examples of this alleged creature (all from China) have been shown to be hoaxes....(why, if it was true, would one need to deceive?)[/quote]

All of them are hoaxes? Really?

Once again, another example of creationists refusing to use the same evidence as real scientists.

 

[pshun2404]

The chemical process of DNA replication:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_replication

How chemical mutagens work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutagen#DNA_reactive_chemicals

The chemical process of how mutations occur during DNA replication:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16249340

Those are all the chemical processes you need for evolution. The rest are at the biological or physical level.

All true but they do not cause what we see postulated in the Macro-evolution model

 

[pshun2404]

We do have the basis for accepting evolution as a well supported theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/



Genus does not exist in reality. It is a human contrivance. There is nothing in nature that says chimps and humans must be in the same genus or in separate genera.



Then we can add the fossil record to the list of evidences that creationists refuse to deal with.

It's funny that creationists will go on and on about how there aren't any transitional fossils, but do a complete turn around when shown those transitional fossils. In one moment the creationists are using similarities between species, and the next moment they stop doing it.



Then what would a real transitional fossil look like, according to you?

[qutoe]Other so called examples of this alleged creature (all from China) have been shown to be hoaxes....(why, if it was true, would one need to deceive?)

All of them are hoaxes? Really?

Once again, another example of creationists refusing to use the same evidence as real scientists.[/QUOTE]

Nice try to derail LM...one has nothing to do with the other... also I did not say they all were hoaxes...being good at twisting things does not make you a good dancer.

 

[Black Dog]

First off Tours is one the worlds ten most renowned Chemists and you obviously have no idea what the man thinks or believes. He even in this smallest blurb does not ignore or deny "evolution" only "Macro" evolution because there really is no proof at all from a chemical perspective.

Other Chemists (not all) share his view (even some Nobel prize winniers and Laureates) so his challenge stands as reasonable and worthy of an answer other than this vague excuse....

I like the questions "How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” And it is not easy for him to admit publicly "We have no idea." But it is the truth...we do not...

It is simply a paradox that cannot be explained by unguided natural processes. Please note Tours is not a "Creation scientist" nor does he support ID (for he has admittedly seen no proof for that either)...

Regardless, if The Cadet quoted him accurately, he is committing a classic fallacy, as Barry Desborough pointed out, argument from personal incredulity.

 

[Loudmouth]

All true but they do not cause what we see postulated in the Macro-evolution model

Why do you think humans and chimps look different? Isn't it because our DNA is different?

 

[Loudmouth]

Nice try to derail LM...one has nothing to do with the other... also I did not say they all were hoaxes...being good at twisting things does not make you a good dancer.

So which ones are real fossils, and why aren't they transitional?

 

[Barry Desborough]

All true but they do not cause what we see postulated in the Macro-evolution model

So you expect a chemical reaction that poofs, for example, a fish into a giraffe, do you?

 

[crjmurray]

So you expect a chemical reaction that poofs, for example, a fish into a giraffe, do you?

Bibbidy Bobbidy Boo, brah.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/reality-check-courtesy-of-james-tour/

Explain to me exactly how each and every single one of those rocks, boulders, gravels and sands were exactly fitted together into the original mountain.

Only a nitwit will deny that that rock field originated in that mountain. But, nobody would ever expend the trillions of dollars necessary to reassemble the original mountain.

Closer to the "challenge" by James M. Tour, only a nitwit would think they could teach evolution to a creationist over lunch.