James Tour demolishes secular claims of solving the origin of life

[Jeff S]

just searching randomly on youtube I ran across this guy who I never heard of before. James Tour is a synthethic chemist and so he has first hand knowledge of the genetic makeup of just about anything. Two videos were interesting. The first is very short but certainly make him sound like he knows what he's doing. it's at

The second is very longer and what's notable about it is how he explains how some people act as if they've solve the origin of life problem but really haven't. The video is at

 

[Deborah D]

Very enlightening! Thanks for posting these.

If I were on the fence concerning how life originated, Tour's point about the complexity of a single cell (far different from Darwin's conclusions about cells) would be enough to convince me that life could NOT have originated by chance. The only reasonable explanation points to design. It's sad that evolutionists tend to be too brainwashed or too narrow-minded to see this.

 

[Job 33:6]

But of course evolution regards change of pre existing life (and pre existing cells). It doesn't involve explanations of how life arose (or how cells arose). Darwin never spoke of how the original first cell would have come about.

So pointing out that the first cell was likely complex, isn't an argument against evolution because evolution doesn't pertain to the origins of life.

 

[-57]

But of course evolution regards change of pre existing life. It doesn't involve explanations of how life arose. Darwin never spoke of how the original first cell would have come about.

Science has shown that even the so-called simple cell of Darwin's is extremely complex.
Deborah D is correct....The only reasonable explanation points to design

 

[Aussie Pete]

just searching randomly on youtube I ran across this guy who I never heard of before. James Tour is a synthethic chemist and so he has first hand knowledge of the genetic makeup of just about anything. Two videos were interesting. The first is very short but certainly make him sound like he knows what he's doing. it's at

The second is very longer and what's notable about it is how he explains how some people act as if they've solve the origin of life problem but really haven't. The video is at

James Tour loves to preach the gospel and has led many people to Christ. He has a great testimony and simply skewers the evolutionists attempts to explain the origin of life.

 

[Aussie Pete]

But of course evolution regards change of pre existing life (and pre existing cells). It doesn't involve explanations of how life arose (or how cells arose). Darwin never spoke of how the original first cell would have come about.

So pointing out that the first cell was likely complex, isn't an argument against evolution because evolution doesn't pertain to the origins of life.

No evolutionist can explain macro evolution. It is not observed in the laboratory, and no fossil evidence exists. Micro evolution is a different case. It is observable and can be achieved in a lab. The dishonesty of the pro-evolution camp is to claim that macro evolution is observed when it is actually micro evolution. Many Christians, far brighter that I am, expose the fallacies involved in the evolutionists' claims. Professor James Tour is one, Dr Walt Brown another and a great list of people you can find at creation.com

 

[Job 33:6]

No evolutionist can explain macro evolution. It is not observed in the laboratory, and no fossil evidence exists. Micro evolution is a different case. It is observable and can be achieved in a lab. The dishonesty of the pro-evolution camp is to claim that macro evolution is observed when it is actually micro evolution. Many Christians, far brighter that I am, expose the fallacies involved in the evolutionists' claims. Professor James Tour is one, Dr Walt Brown another and a great list of people you can find at creation.com

This isn't a response to my words, you're just randomly speaking.

 

[Aussie Pete]

This isn't a response to my words, you're just randomly speaking.

I was addressing your comment that evolution does not pertain to the origins of life. My apologies for not making that clear. I disagree with your premise. Darwin may well have not considered it. It's a vexed question for anyone who takes evolution seriously.

 

[RTP76]

just searching randomly on youtube I ran across this guy who I never heard of before. James Tour is a synthethic chemist and so he has first hand knowledge of the genetic makeup of just about anything. Two videos were interesting. The first is very short but certainly make him sound like he knows what he's doing. it's at

The second is very longer and what's notable about it is how he explains how some people act as if they've solve the origin of life problem but really haven't. The video is at

Jeff, thank you for sharing these!

To add to the thread, while Dr. Tour does focus more of his discussion around the origin of life, he does also have informed input regarding evolution as well found here:

James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation

To quote Dr. Tour:

I posit that the gross chemical changes needed for macroevolution (defined here as origin of the major organismal groups, i.e., of the body plans, Body plan - Wikipedia) are not understood and presently we cannot even suggest the mechanisms, let alone observe them. Any massive functional change of a body part would require multiple concerted lines of variations. Sure, one can suggest multiple small changes ad infinitum, but the concerted requirement of multiple changes all in the same place and at the same time, is impossible to chemically fathom. One day the requisite chemical basis might become apparent so that the questions can be answered. But present-day biology is far from providing even a chemical proposal for body plan changes, let alone a data-substantiated chemical mechanism.

Dr. Tour does go on to acknowledge the work done in support for universal common descent, and there is support for this, but he also makes this remark:

A better approach would include more teaching about common descent using basic genetics arguments. But there should also be coverage of legitimate scientific puzzles such as macroevolution’s weak underpinning for the origin of body plans, the unexplainable functional differences between the modern human brain and that of other hominids, the ENCODE and orphan gene findings and disagreements, the huge difficulties regarding the theories on the origin of first life, and the mystery of information’s origin in the sequence of the nucleic acids.

As such, we need to recognize that any presentation of arguments suggesting macroevolution is 'fact', that it is observable, that only the fundamentalist dimwit cannot understand or turns a blind eye to such overwhelming evidence is both improper and completely fallacious--such are arguments made dogmatically from a complete lack of actual knowledge / experience (though certainly not a lack of faith in believing macroevolution is true--and the same goes for the creationist, it is by faith that the Genesis account is taken as written, that God supernaturally created the major body plans--the 'kinds' that reproduce after their kind). As Dr. Tour has indicated in the videos and in his own personal view of the creation/evolution discussion, no biologist (let alone any other discipline of science) has even the slightest clue of how to create life, nor an understanding of the mechanisms that would establish the major body plans--as he states "they [biologists] have never made anything, all they have ever done is from kit, a kit made by chemists."

Dr. Tour is admittedly less clear as to the time horizons in Genesis... and that is fine, he acknowledges the clarity of the text; however, chooses to remain less committed on this point.

It would be good for all of us who enjoy debating creation / evolution to re-watch the videos, there is a good deal of insight about what is actually known, how this is presented to the public (and fellow colleagues / scientists), and the [adverse] effect it has in the way the knowledge is falsely portrayed:

 

[Aussie Pete]

Jeff, thank you for sharing these!

To add to the thread, while Dr. Tour does focus more of his discussion around the origin of life, he does also have informed input regarding evolution as well found here:

James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation

To quote Dr. Tour:


Dr. Tour does go on to acknowledge the work done in support for universal common descent, and there is support for this, but he also makes this remark:



As such, we need to recognize that any presentation of arguments suggesting macroevolution is 'fact', that it is observable, that only the fundamentalist dimwit cannot understand or turns a blind eye to such overwhelming evidence is both improper and completely fallacious--such are arguments made dogmatically from a complete lack of actual knowledge / experience (though certainly not a lack of faith in believing macroevolution is true--and the same goes for the creationist, it is by faith that the Genesis account is taken as written, that God supernaturally created the major body plans--the 'kinds' that reproduce after their kind). As Dr. Tour has indicated in the videos and in his own personal view of the creation/evolution discussion, no biologist (let alone any other discipline of science) has even the slightest clue of how to create life, nor an understanding of the mechanisms that would establish the major body plans--as he states "they [biologists] have never made anything, all they have ever done is from kit, a kit made by chemists."

Dr. Tour is admittedly less clear as to the time horizons in Genesis... and that is fine, he acknowledges the clarity of the text; however, chooses to remain less committed on this point.

It would be good for all of us who enjoy debating creation / evolution to re-watch the videos, there is a good deal of insight about what is actually known, how this is presented to the public (and fellow colleagues / scientists), and the [adverse] effect it has in the way the knowledge is falsely portrayed:

Professor Tour is a remarkable scientist and a remarkable Christian. His zeal for scientific research is only exceeded by his zeal for the lost. He is an evangelist. He comes in for a great deal of criticism for both his refusal to bow at evolution's altar and his devotion to Christ. Pray for him, please.

 

[Job 33:6]

Jeff, thank you for sharing these!

To add to the thread, while Dr. Tour does focus more of his discussion around the origin of life, he does also have informed input regarding evolution as well found here:

James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation

To quote Dr. Tour:

Sure, one can suggest multiple small changes ad infinitum, but the concerted requirement of multiple changes all in the same place and at the same time, is impossible to chemically fathom.

As Dr. Tour has indicated in the videos and in his own personal view of the creation/evolution discussion, no biologist (let alone any other discipline of science) has even the slightest clue of how to create life.

But nobody suggests that one body plan evolves into another "in the same place at the same time".

For example, the transition from fish to amphibians took tens of millions of years. As did reptile to bird, reptile to mammal and amphibian to reptile transitions.

And people also cannot create a planet or a star, but we certainly understand the history and evolution of each, just as we do with life here on earth.

 

[Aussie Pete]

But nobody suggests that one body plan evolves into another "in the same place at the same time".

For example, the transition from fish to amphibians took tens of millions of years. As did reptile to bird, reptile to mammal and amphibian to reptile transitions.

And people also cannot create a planet or a star, but we certainly understand the history and evolution of each, just as we do with life here on earth.

View attachment 266186

Except it only happened in the imagination of Evolutionists.

 

[Job 33:6]

Except it only happened in the imagination of Evolutionists.

Man, you deserve a trophy for that one! Good response!

How about responding to my words? As an example, the transition from fish to amphibians spanned tens of millions of years, so why would the speaker suggest that changes happened "at the same time"?

The transition literally spans some 50 million years from one body type to another.
The origin of tetrapods

 

[Aussie Pete]

Man, you deserve a trophy for that one! Good response!

How about responding to my words? As an example, the transition from fish to amphibians spanned tens of millions of years, so why would the speaker suggest that changes happened "at the same time"?

The transition literally spans some 50 million years from one body type to another.
The origin of tetrapods

Your premise that there was a transition at all is not plausible. It does not matter how much time there is. The odds that a male and a female would have a beneficial genetic mutation at the same time are slim. Multiply that by the astronomical number of transitions required and you have an impossible situation. How and why did feathers evolve? What creature had enough intelligence to decide what was needed for flight? Oh, sorry, creatures are purely a result of random and thoughtless coincidences. What decided the "body plan" for birds? They are astonishing creatures. Hollow bones to save weight. Lungs that work entirely differently from mammal lungs. A built in navigation system that humans are only just beginning to understand. Feathers that are utterly unlike fur. Have you ever looked at the physiology of a Humming bird? They are incredible. Just an accident of time and organic matter? No way.

 

[Job 33:6]

Your premise that there was a transition at all is not plausible. It does not matter how much time there is. .

Obviously it does matter how much time there is, else the speaker would not have brought it up in the quoted material.

The speaker suggests that if evolution were true, that body plan changes would have occurred "in the same place at the same time", thereby making evolution implausible. However, in reality, the theory of evolution suggests that major transitions from one body plan to another span tens of millions of years as well as geographically span around the globe. Body plan transitions hardly occur at the same place or the same time.

Here is the quote again, in case it was missed:

"Sure, one can suggest multiple small changes ad infinitum, but the concerted requirement of multiple changes all in the same place and at the same time, is impossible to chemically fathom."-mr tour

 

[RTP76]

But nobody suggests that one body plan evolves into another "in the same place at the same time".

For example, the transition from fish to amphibians took tens of millions of years. As did reptile to bird, reptile to mammal and amphibian to reptile transitions.

And people also cannot create a planet or a star, but we certainly understand the history and evolution of each, just as we do with life here on earth.

View attachment 266186

What Tour disagrees with is not the idea that one body plan evolved into another at the same place and time, but rather the tag-along theory that goes with evolution: that all life arose from a universal common ancestor.

I agree people cannot create a planet or a star, but whether without such knowledge we can say we actually "understand" the process by which they formed I believe is the point Tour is making, as it relates to evolution.

 

[RTP76]

Your premise that there was a transition at all is not plausible. It does not matter how much time there is. The odds that a male and a female would have a beneficial genetic mutation at the same time are slim. Multiply that by the astronomical number of transitions required and you have an impossible situation. How and why did feathers evolve? What creature had enough intelligence to decide what was needed for flight? Oh, sorry, creatures are purely a result of random and thoughtless coincidences. What decided the "body plan" for birds? They are astonishing creatures. Hollow bones to save weight. Lungs that work entirely differently from mammal lungs. A built in navigation system that humans are only just beginning to understand. Feathers that are utterly unlike fur. Have you ever looked at the physiology of a Humming bird? They are incredible. Just an accident of time and organic matter? No way.

Hi Aussie Pete! You brought up time here and that it does not matter how much of it there is. I agree, and will add that J. Tour makes the remark in one of the videos that time is often an enemy within the field of synthetic organic chemistry.

For an unguided materialistic process, such as evolution, at a molecular level the right changes would have to take place and it's not enough to just imagine that beneficial changes are occurring (and building up) over millions or tens of millions of years, but in order to produce stable chemicals, many changes have to happen in a concerted effort (proper conditions, proper sequence, proper timing, etc...) and this, I believe, is why Dr. Tour states that evolution [from a universal common ancestor] is impossible to chemically fathom (direct quote from him below):

Sure, one can suggest multiple small changes ad infinitum, but the concerted requirement of multiple changes all in the same place and at the same time, is impossible to chemically fathom

 

[RTP76]

Obviously it does matter how much time there is, else the speaker would not have brought it up in the quoted material.

The speaker suggests that if evolution were true, that body plan changes would have occurred "in the same place at the same time", thereby making evolution implausible. However, in reality, the theory of evolution suggests that major transitions from one body plan to another span tens of millions of years as well as geographically span around the globe. Body plan transitions hardly occur at the same place or the same time.

Here is the quote again, in case it was missed:

"Sure, one can suggest multiple small changes ad infinitum, but the concerted requirement of multiple changes all in the same place and at the same time, is impossible to chemically fathom."-mr tour

Oh... I think I understand what you are saying here with the quote. My view of what Tour is stating is that there would need to be many changes happening at the same time/place to support evolution, which requires a concerted effort... at the chemical level. Recall that Dr. Tour is a synthetic organic chemist... so the context of this statement is going to be from his background, experience and knowledge--I don't see this as him saying evolution is multiple body plan transitions at the same time/place. He's indicated he has met with many biologists and studied the research at length... so it stands to reason this statement isn't about body plan changes, but the underlying chemical changes that would be needed to support such change in a purely materialistic/unguided process (regardless of the believed span of time).

 

[Job 33:6]

What Tour disagrees with is not the idea that one body plan evolved into another at the same place and time, but rather the tag-along theory that goes with evolution: that all life arose from a universal common ancestor.

I agree people cannot create a planet or a star, but whether without such knowledge we can say we actually "understand" the process by which they formed I believe is the point Tour is making, as it relates to evolution.

Well let's look at the quote:

I posit that the gross chemical changes needed for macroevolution (defined here as origin of the major organismal groups, i.e., of the body plans, Body plan - Wikipedia) are not understood and presently we cannot even suggest the mechanisms, let alone observe them. Any massive functional change of a body part would require multiple concerted lines of variations. Sure, one can suggest multiple small changes ad infinitum, but the concerted requirement of multiple changes all in the same place and at the same time, is impossible to chemically fathom.

Indeed, Mr. Tour does appear to be describing evolution of body plans, IE fish to amphibians, amphibian to reptile etc. He couldn't possibly be referring to body plans in the context of an original common ancestor because of course, the original common ancestor pre existed the body plans in which he referenced in his wiki link. Also, nobody ever uses the phrase "macro evolution of body plans" in reference to common ancestor precambrian microbes. He's clearly referring to major body plans such as those that are referenced in his own link.

Check this out:

Studies from 2000 to 2018 have suggested an increasingly ancient time for LUCA. In 2000, estimations suggested LUCA existed 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago in the Paleoarchean era,[5][6] a few hundred million years after the earliest fossil evidence of life, for which there are several candidates ranging in age from 3.48 to 4.28 billion years ago.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] A 2018 study from the University of Bristol, applying a molecular clock model, places the LUCA shortly after 4.5 billion years ago, within the Hadean.[14][15]
-wikipedia

Of course, these ages estimated are literally billions of years before any body plan that we are aware of. Yet the quote refers to "macroevolution" of body plans of "major organismal groups" which via the link provided, reference major groups such as mammals and reptiles, birds etc.

And from the link within the quote:
A body plan, Bauplan (German plural Baupläne), or ground plan is a set of morphological features common to many members of a phylum of animals.[1] The vertebrate body plan is one of many: invertebrates consist of many phyla.

 

[RTP76]

Well let's look at the quote:

I posit that the gross chemical changes needed for macroevolution (defined here as origin of the major organismal groups, i.e., of the body plans, Body plan - Wikipedia) are not understood and presently we cannot even suggest the mechanisms, let alone observe them. Any massive functional change of a body part would require multiple concerted lines of variations. Sure, one can suggest multiple small changes ad infinitum, but the concerted requirement of multiple changes all in the same place and at the same time, is impossible to chemically fathom.

Indeed, Mr. Tour does appear to be describing evolution of body plans, IE fish to amphibians, amphibian to reptile etc. He couldn't possibly be referring to body plans in the context of an original common ancestor because of course, the original common ancestor pre existed the body plans in which he referenced in his wiki link. Also, nobody ever uses the phrase "macro evolution of body plans" in reference to common ancestor precambrian microbes. He's clearly referring to major body plans such as those that are referenced in his own link.

Check this out:

Studies from 2000 to 2018 have suggested an increasingly ancient time for LUCA. In 2000, estimations suggested LUCA existed 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago in the Paleoarchean era,[5][6] a few hundred million years after the earliest fossil evidence of life, for which there are several candidates ranging in age from 3.48 to 4.28 billion years ago.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] A 2018 study from the University of Bristol, applying a molecular clock model, places the LUCA shortly after 4.5 billion years ago, within the Hadean.[14][15]
-wikipedia

Of course, these ages estimated are literally billions of years before any body plan that we are aware of. Yet the quote refers to "macroevolution" of body plans of "major organismal groups" which via the link provided, reference major groups such as mammals and reptiles, birds etc.

And from the link within the quote:
A body plan, Bauplan (German plural Baupläne), or ground plan is a set of morphological features common to many members of a phylum of animals.[1] The vertebrate body plan is one of many: invertebrates consist of many phyla.

Are suggesting that Dr. Tour believes (incorrectly) that mainstream evolution posits all body plan changes should have occurred at once and and the same place (which would obviously require little to no time at all)? And this is in light of:

- Him having signed the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism back in 2001.
- Him having received awards such as (not limited to) 50 most Influential Scientists in the World, Scientist of the Year, Nano Lectureship Award, ranked one of the top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade, etc...
- Him speaking at length on the topic of evolution, publicly, to which no biologist / chemist has refuted his statements.

I have the link to the full article with the quote you are referencing:
James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation

It's just my view I suppose, but I don't read what he is stating the same way you seem to be interpreting his statement; and given his background, education, experience, and credentials & awards, I find it difficult to ascribe to him as not being familiar with the fundamental principles of evolution that even people like me can understand. I'm pretty sure he's given more time, thought and energy to the topic than I have.

You are of course welcome to contact him and correct him and/or seek clarification as to what he meant:
Email: tour@rice.edu