James Tour demolishes secular claims of solving 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.

So why do evolutionists search for the origins of life? Because they must in order to understand evolution. Nothing comes from nothing. Life itself is a mystery. How did inanimate chemicals come alive? OOL research is still going on after 60 years of failure. That research time, expertise and money could have been put towards something useful such as medical research.

 

[Job 33:6]

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

I am suggesting that mr tour is attacking a straw man and misrepresenting the theory of evolution.

The language of the quote regarding macroevolution of body types is quite clear. Whether intentional or not, he is misrepresenting the theory.

 

[Job 33:6]

So why do evolutionists search for the origins of life? Because they must in order to understand evolution. Nothing comes from nothing. Life itself is a mystery. How did inanimate chemicals come alive? OOL research is still going on after 60 years of failure. That research time, expertise and money could have been put towards something useful such as medical research.

You actually don't have to know anything about the origins of life to understand evolution. Darwin certainly knew nothing of the origins of life, yet he published on the origin of species.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I am suggesting that mr tour is attacking a straw man and misrepresenting the theory of evolution.

The language of the quote regarding macroevolution of body types is quite clear. Whether intentional or not, he is misrepresenting the theory.

If that is the case, how come not one scientist, including Nobel prize winners, have been able to refute him? Same goes for Walt Brown, who has had an open invitation for years to his critics to prove their case. No one will debate these guys because they know that they have no real argument. Try not cherry picking the odd statement here and there. Get Professor Tour's complete argument as to why evolution is implausible.

 

[Aussie Pete]

You actually don't have to know anything about the origins of life to understand evolution. Darwin certainly knew nothing of the origins of life, yet he published on the origin of species.

That is true, I accept that. Modern evolutionists are just as ignorant of the origins of life. Perhaps someone should point out that before something can evolve, it has to be alive.

 

[Job 33:6]

If that is the case, how come not one scientist, including Nobel prize winners, have been able to refute him? Same goes for Walt Brown, who has had an open invitation for years to his critics to prove their case. No one will debate these guys because they know that they have no real argument. Try not cherry picking the odd statement here and there. Get Professor Tour's complete argument as to why evolution is implausible.

I'm not cherry picking. A quote of his was provided here in the discussion. I simply pointed out that it didn't make sense. That's really all there is to it.

If you would like to post another quote for discussion, you're free to do so.

And regarding whether or not he has been refuted, I have not seen any debates, so I wouldn't know if he has or has not been refuted. Do you have any live debates you could share of his, so that we can see if he has or has not been refuted?

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

So why do evolutionists search for the origins of life?

Because intelligent people tend to be curious of how the universe works ?

How did inanimate chemicals come alive? OOL research is still going on after 60 years of failure.

If something is not discovered in 60 years just forget about it ? Good thing most people do not agree with this or we would still be living in caves....

That research time, expertise and money could have been put towards something useful such as medical research.

Well if we talk about waste of time for reasearch, money and expertise in chemical fields I would promote cosmetics industry for contender with yearly turnaround of 170 billion over ten yearsa ago. I am sure it has gone up quite a bit by now as China and India raise more people from absolute poverty.

Cosmetic industry - Wikipedia

As for Mr Tour

Tour said that the explanations offered by evolution are incomplete, and he found it hard to believe that nature can produce the machinery of cells through random processes. Despite this, he said he remained open-minded about evolution. He was quoted as saying "I respect that work" and being open to the possibility that future research will complete the explanations.[37]

 

[RTP76]

I am suggesting that mr tour is attacking a straw man and misrepresenting the theory of evolution.

The language of the quote regarding macroevolution of body types is quite clear. Whether intentional or not, he is misrepresenting the theory.

Thanks for clarifying your view. I haven't seen all the critiques regarding his remarks, but from those I have read, I've not seen them refuted on a scientific basis backed by data-supported research... and that goes for this forum as well.

 

[Job 33:6]

Thanks for clarifying your view. I haven't seen all the critiques regarding his remarks, but from those I have read, I've not seen them refuted on a scientific basis backed by data-supported research... and that goes for this forum as well.

I am unaware of what Mr. Tours claims are to begin with. Let alone would I be able to comment of their accuracy or not.

As far as I can tell, he does not hold a firm position for or against common descent, rather he just claims that what we do know about common descent, in his view, isn't sufficient. Whatever that evidence may be.

 

[RTP76]

I am unaware of what Mr. Tours claims are to begin with. Let alone would I be able to comment of their accuracy or not.

As far as I can tell, he does not hold a firm position for or against common descent, rather he just claims that what we do know about common descent, in his view, isn't sufficient. Whatever that evidence may be.

I would agree... it is not real clear regarding his exact position for/against common descent; however, he is clear he is skeptical specifically of universal common descent (theory that all life arose from a common ancestor).

Creation scientists are even "pro" common descent in the sense that they hold to the view that God created the original ancestors for each form/body plan and that each of these original ancestors have produced variations of offspring over time (some creationists hold to shorter time, others longer time).

Tour's critique of universal common descent is that there is no data-substantiated experiments validating the claims regarding the alleged mechanisms creating new complex systems and new body plans. Sure, random variations, natural selection, neutral drift et al. have been claimed as being responsible for creating the new systems and new body plans, but Tour often responds, "Fine, show me the data for this", to which therein lies the present dilemma and what he states that evolutionary biology has been largely reduced to story-telling.

In the following video starting at 40:30 and through to the end, Tour goes into this at more length and does a pretty good job encapsulating what I think are the majority of general critiques against evolution here within this forum specifically within Creation & Theistic Evolution:

 

[Job 33:6]

"Tour's critique of universal common descent is that there is no data-substantiated experiments validating the claims regarding the alleged mechanisms creating new complex systems and new body plans. Sure, random variations, natural selection, neutral drift et al. have been claimed as being responsible for creating the new systems and new body plans, but Tour often responds, "Fine, show me the data for this", to which therein lies the present dilemma and what he states that evolutionary biology has been largely reduced to story-telling"

I think this sounds good, but who's to say that things like natural selection, mutations and genetic drift haven't been demonstrated as mechanisms for macro evolution of body types? I would suggest that they have. People ask for experiments, well, the best we have are things like observed instances of allopatric speciation, things like recorded accumulation and fixation of beneficial mutations by lenski, biogeographic distributions of animals in conjunction with the fossil record etc. Nobody has a time machine to observe hadean microbial origins. All we can do is observe the causes for micro evolution today and accept it as the most plausible means for macro evolution, given an extraordinary amount of time (which we know has indeed passed).

I would say that observation of one species evolving into another in current times is sufficient in justifying macroevolution because macroevolution itself is just a compilation of multiple speciation events. Evolution doesn't suggest that evolution occurs in one generation from one family or order to another.

With that said, why would anyone ask for more? In order to refute this logic, someone would have demonstrate a biological difference between macro and micro evolution. But of course there is none to refer to. Macro and micro are just arbitrary words we use to describe an extent, like long distance vs short distance. But at the end of the day, a foot is a foot and if we see a person take a step, there is no logical means of denying that the same mechanism for taking a step would fail by step 5.

And beyond this still, even if natural selection and mutations didn't account for how evolution occurred in all instances, things like the summation of collaborating phylogenetic trees between things like genetics and the fossil succession really only makes sense in light of common descent.

Which goes back to your comment that a lot of Creationists already accept common descent, which begs the question of what Mr. Tour isn't willing to accept about common descent. @RTP76

Maybe he himself isn't willing to clarify, else he'd risk refutation.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I'm not cherry picking. A quote of his was provided here in the discussion. I simply pointed out that it didn't make sense. That's really all there is to it.

If you would like to post another quote for discussion, you're free to do so.

And regarding whether or not he has been refuted, I have not seen any debates, so I wouldn't know if he has or has not been refuted. Do you have any live debates you could share of his, so that we can see if he has or has not been refuted?

Not that I know of. People won't debate James Tour or Walt Brown, despite standing offers. I wonder why.
What Professor Tour means, for example, is how does a blood system evolve? If blood evolves first, what does the organism do with it? How about veins and arteries. They have to evolve at the same time. Not to mention a pumping system to circulate the blood. Blood itself is enormously complex. How about a self-sealing system for arteries and veins. The system has to know that there is a leak. If the blood clots, it must only be at the wound site, otherwise the organism dies. If it does not clot at the wound site, the creature dies from blood loss. And on and on it goes. This is not a change at the organic level. It has to happen in DNA. How? Why? What governs that change? And it all has to be at the same time, or it fails and the creature dies. When it dies, all the information is lost. So the process halts.

"Tour's critique of universal common descent is that there is no data-substantiated experiments validating the claims regarding the alleged mechanisms creating new complex systems and new body plans. Sure, random variations, natural selection, neutral drift et al. have been claimed as being responsible for creating the new systems and new body plans, but Tour often responds, "Fine, show me the data for this", to which therein lies the present dilemma and what he states that evolutionary biology has been largely reduced to story-telling"

I think this sounds good, but who's to say that things like natural selection, mutations and genetic drift haven't been demonstrated as mechanisms for macro evolution of body types? I would suggest that they have. People ask for experiments, well, the best we have are things like observed instances of allopatric speciation, things like recorded accumulation and fixation of beneficial mutations by lenski, biogeographic distributions of animals in conjunction with the fossil record etc. Nobody has a time machine to observe hadean microbial origins. All we can do is observe the causes for micro evolution today and accept it as the most plausible means for macro evolution, given an extraordinary amount of time (which we know has indeed passed).

I would say that observation of one species evolving into another in current times is sufficient in justifying macroevolution because macroevolution itself is just a compilation of multiple speciation events. Evolution doesn't suggest that evolution occurs in one generation from one family or order to another.

With that said, why would anyone ask for more? In order to refute this logic, someone would have demonstrate a biological difference between macro and micro evolution. But of course there is none to refer to. Macro and micro are just arbitrary words we use to describe an extent, like long distance vs short distance. But at the end of the day, a foot is a foot and if we see a person take a step, there is no logical means of denying that the same mechanism for taking a step would fail by step 5.

And beyond this still, even if natural selection and mutations didn't account for how evolution occurred in all instances, things like the summation of collaborating phylogenetic trees between things like genetics and the fossil succession really only makes sense in light of common descent.

Which goes back to your comment that a lot of Creationists already accept common descent, which begs the question of what Mr. Tour isn't willing to accept about common descent. @RTP76

Maybe he himself isn't willing to clarify, else he'd risk refutation.

James Tour is open to correction. He at least admits the possibility, however remote, that there is an unknown mechanism that could make evolution work. Evolutionists are far less open to doubt. He regularly gets papers purporting to show the mechanisms. He skewers those attempts. He's offered to provide all the chemicals required, lipids, amino acids, proteins etc that make up a basic lifeform. So far, no one has taken him up and no one has produced life by that means. Personally, I think Professor Tour is remarkably generous in his approach. I believe that it's case closed. If the mechanism has not been found by now, it never will be.

 

[RTP76]

"Tour's critique of universal common descent is that there is no data-substantiated experiments validating the claims regarding the alleged mechanisms creating new complex systems and new body plans. Sure, random variations, natural selection, neutral drift et al. have been claimed as being responsible for creating the new systems and new body plans, but Tour often responds, "Fine, show me the data for this", to which therein lies the present dilemma and what he states that evolutionary biology has been largely reduced to story-telling"

I think this sounds good, but who's to say that things like natural selection, mutations and genetic drift haven't been demonstrated as mechanisms for macro evolution of body types? I would suggest that they have. People ask for experiments, well, the best we have are things like observed instances of allopatric speciation, things like recorded accumulation and fixation of beneficial mutations by lenski, biogeographic distributions of animals in conjunction with the fossil record etc. Nobody has a time machine to observe hadean microbial origins. All we can do is observe the causes for micro evolution today and accept it as the most plausible means for macro evolution, given an extraordinary amount of time (which we know has indeed passed).

I would say that observation of one species evolving into another in current times is sufficient in justifying macroevolution because macroevolution itself is just a compilation of multiple speciation events. Evolution doesn't suggest that evolution occurs in one generation from one family or order to another.

With that said, why would anyone ask for more? In order to refute this logic, someone would have demonstrate a biological difference between macro and micro evolution. But of course there is none to refer to. Macro and micro are just arbitrary words we use to describe an extent, like long distance vs short distance. But at the end of the day, a foot is a foot and if we see a person take a step, there is no logical means of denying that the same mechanism for taking a step would fail by step 5.

And beyond this still, even if natural selection and mutations didn't account for how evolution occurred in all instances, things like the summation of collaborating phylogenetic trees between things like genetics and the fossil succession really only makes sense in light of common descent.

Which goes back to your comment that a lot of Creationists already accept common descent, which begs the question of what Mr. Tour isn't willing to accept about common descent. @RTP76

Maybe he himself isn't willing to clarify, else he'd risk refutation.

I understand your position and the points you bring up. It may just be that, like me, Tour is too conservative in his philosophy of thought such that if you tell him something can go a mile then show him that thing traveling 1 foot, he asks, "what about the other 5,279 feet?"

Tour may actually have a more liberal view of common descent than creationists... I don't know where he 'draws the line' but if we equate 1 foot as demonstrating that 5,280 feet are possible, that is where I believe he's asking for the data for the other 5,279 feet and if he continues to get shown just more of the same 1 foot (albeit with different species each time)... it's still just 1 foot. In this metaphor too, the view isn't that each foot is the same as the preceding foot; rather, there are additional and more significant challenges to overcome the greater the distance attempting to be traveled.

I suspect we'll never fully know the answer on this side of heaven, for Ecclesiastes 3:11 states:

"He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end."

 

[Job 33:6]

"So far, no one has taken him up and no one has produced life by that means."

And back to my original comment, the origins of life and how life came to be is a completely different field of study than evolution and common descent.

And just because people do not know how life came to be, does not mean that we do not know how it evolves.

@Aussie Pete

 

[Job 33:6]

I understand your position and the points you bring up. It may just be that, like me, Tour is too conservative in his philosophy of thought such that if you tell him something can go a mile then show him that thing traveling 1 foot, he asks, "what about the other 5,279 feet?"

Tour may actually have a more liberal view of common descent than creationists... I don't know where he 'draws the line' but if we equate 1 foot as demonstrating that 5,280 feet are possible, that is where I believe he's asking for the data for the other 5,279 feet and if he continues to get shown just more of the same 1 foot (albeit with different species each time)... it's still just 1 foot. In this metaphor too, the view isn't that each foot is the same as the preceding foot; rather, there are additional and more significant challenges to overcome the greater the distance attempting to be traveled.

I suspect we'll never fully know the answer on this side of heaven, for Ecclesiastes 3:11 states:

"He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end."

I would ask the question, what are the significant steps in question? If 1 step were observed to be easy, why would step 2 or 3 be any harder? He would have to be specific.

I think part of the challenge is that not everyone is a microbiologist. I actually don't even know what Mr. Tours specialty is. But it's hard to know what particular steps he is uncomfortable with, not being of his field of research. Maybe he is comfortable with 5,000 steps and maybe it's just the remaining 280 that he doesnt agree with?

But I would also add that, different fields are going to give different perspectives on what is occuring.

For example, if we see a succession of fossils, it becomes irrelevant to the paleontologist what the biological mechanisms may be, simply because the succession is what it is. He may see complicated scenarios that scientists of other fields overlook, or vise versa. And whether God manipulated DNA in a miracle to evolve an amphibian from a fish, or if it happened similar to the way speciation happens today, kind of becomes...somewhat irrelevant to the broader question of if amphibians came from fish.

And;

Does Mr. Tour have a problem with the idea that a person walked a mile? Or does he have a problem with how the person walked the mile? Due to the complexity of biological systems developing over billions of years, there will probably always be uncertain areas of how particular events unfolded in evolution. But saying that we do not know how say...hadean biological systems evolved some obscure feature, doesn't really do justice for the idea that life didn't evolve at all.

Yes I agree, there are certainly some things that we will never know.

 

[Job 33:6]

Not that I know of. People won't debate James Tour or Walt Brown, despite standing offers. I wonder why.
What Professor Tour means, for example, is how does a blood system evolve? If blood evolves first, what does the organism do with it? How about veins and arteries. They have to evolve at the same time. Not to mention a pumping system to circulate the blood. Blood itself is enormously complex. How about a self-sealing system for arteries and veins. The system has to know that there is a leak. If the blood clots, it must only be at the wound site, otherwise the organism dies. If it does not clot at the wound site, the creature dies from blood loss. And on and on it goes. This is not a change at the organic level. It has to happen in DNA. How? Why? What governs that change? And it all has to be at the same time, or it fails and the creature dies. When it dies, all the information is lost. So the process halts.

James Tour is open to correction. He at least admits the possibility, however remote, that there is an unknown mechanism that could make evolution work. Evolutionists are far less open to doubt. He regularly gets papers purporting to show the mechanisms. He skewers those attempts. He's offered to provide all the chemicals required, lipids, amino acids, proteins etc that make up a basic lifeform. So far, no one has taken him up and no one has produced life by that means. Personally, I think Professor Tour is remarkably generous in his approach. I believe that it's case closed. If the mechanism has not been found by now, it never will be.

On the discussion of blood vessels and clotting, an animal can have veins before it has blood clots. You should understand that millions of years ago, we didn't have 4 chambered hearts and a complex circulatory system.

Reptiles have 3 and a half-ish chambered hearts.
Secrets of the Four Chambers Revealed by Reptile Hearts- All Images | NSF - National Science Foundation

Amphibians have 3 chambered hearts.

Fish have two chambered hearts.

Primitive vertebrates, like worms don't have any Chambers and in some cases don't even have blood (they pump nutrients through their bodies).

And of course this aligns with every other field of study which suggests that primitive vertebrates evolved into fish, fish to amphibians and then to reptiles and then to mammals like us.

Animals didn't need a complex heart and arteries and veins and blood clotting all at once. It came about progressively over the past 600 million years.

It's just like the chicken and the egg debate. People used to think it was too complicated of a query to answer, then we found out that egg laying reptiles evolved into birds. Hence the egg came first. The egg and bird did not need to come about at the same time.

 

[Job 33:6]

And people can claim that there are too many complicated steps for macro evolution to occur. But macro evolution really is just a sequences of one species to another.

Google Image Result for https://www.sanparks.org/images//parks/kruger/elephants/elephant-evolution.jpg

At no point does the paleomastodon skip from genus to genus or order to order. The paleomastodon doesnt change straight into the African elephant. It evolves through small steps, just as we see occurring in life today.

 

[Aussie Pete]

On the discussion of blood vessels and clotting, an animal can have veins before it has blood clots. You should understand that millions of years ago, we didn't have 4 chambered hearts and a complex circulatory system.

Reptiles have 3 and a half-ish chambered hearts.
Secrets of the Four Chambers Revealed by Reptile Hearts- All Images | NSF - National Science Foundation

Amphibians have 3 chambered hearts.

Fish have two chambered hearts.

Primitive vertebrates, like worms don't have any Chambers and in some cases don't even have blood (they pump nutrients through their bodies).

And of course this aligns with every other field of study which suggests that primitive vertebrates evolved into fish, fish to amphibians and then to reptiles and then to mammals like us.

Animals didn't need a complex heart and arteries and veins and blood clotting all at once. It came about progressively over the past 600 million years.

It's just like the chicken and the egg debate. People used to think it was too complicated of a query to answer, then we found out that egg laying reptiles evolved into birds. Hence the egg came first. The egg and bird did not need to come about at the same time.

Tell me how a creature with blood survives an injury if the blood does not clot. Then tell me how the blood vessel detects that it is leaking. Tell me how a creature realised that it needed a heart to circulate blood. Then it needed two, independent vessels to circulate blood. Then tell me how veins happened to have non-return valves to prevent blood pooling and allow the blood to return to the heart. Then tell me how it is only the blood at the wound site that clots or the creature dies. Much of evolutionary theory seems to be based on it happened so it must have evolved.

Evolution starts with an unprovable premise and shuffles observations to suit. What was "fact" not so long ago has been replaced with new "fact". I know because I got that lecture from an evolutionist. My only interest in evolution is in an attempt to help the open minded to at least consider the alternative. If you want to believe it, fine. When an ape comes up to me at the zoo and asks, "Am I my keeper's brother?", I might take evolutionists more seriously.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Tell me how a creature realised that it needed a heart to circulate blood. Then it needed two, independent vessels to circulate blood."-Aussie Pete

"It has been shown a simple change in gene activity in sea squirts can turn their one-chambered heart into a working two-chambered one. "

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information

Genes Dev | Mobile

It just so happens that heart chamber additions through mutation have been observed in sea squirts.

So to answer the question, the sea squirt didnt know that it needed another heart chamber, it came about through mutation. Of the billions of mutations that the species has undergone, one of those billions happened to produce a second chamber.

 

[Job 33:6]

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.

I saw this mentioned and figured I'd respond.

Again, a bird doesn't need to evolve all of these features simultaneously. The bird doesn't need to think "oh I need feathers and hollow bones in order to use my wings to fly!" Then evolves all the millions of features all at once.

Rather feathers evolved long before wings and long before birds. The reason being that feathers have value beyond just use for flight, such as values seen in flightless birds of Australia.

Given the existence of value in supporting fitness for reptiles, mutations that produce feathers have reason to become fixated via natural selection. Once reptiles have feathers, then and afterwards, things like hollow bones or wings, become beneficial, ie wings+feathers = gliding. Later still, Wings+hollow bones=flight.

It's a step by step progression of change, seen in small steps in the fossil succession. And those steps span tens of millions of years. Dinosaurs and other reptiles with feather appeared millions of years before gliding reptiles and millions of years still before birds.

So to go back to the original point again, these countless changes don't occur all at once, they occur step by step, micro evolution after micro evolution, over and over again, over hundreds of millions of years.
bird evolution - Google Search