posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 12:10 AM
SO people want me to counter Dr Tour’s arguments.
So in summary for those who don’t want to read:
Dr Tour does not honestly state the evidence.
He belongs to a biased organisation
He is not an expert in the field. Thus this reduces his understanding considerably. While he may be more informed than the average ape on the street,
he is seeing things through the lenses of his tinted eyewear.
Lets start with his speciality.
Nanotechnology is not the chemistry of DNA, RNA, protiens? Nope it is a purely man made phenomenon. It is a discipline in its very earliest days. If
you watch the video you will see him talking about “gold surfaces”. Can anyone tell me how many gold surfaces we have inside living organisms?
Why is this important?
When you change disciplines you do not have total understanding of the subject matter. I’ve mentioned that I am a Synthetic (organic) Chemsit. Thus
I can look at his nanotech stuff and nod along. He would look at the schemes of the processes I am developing for certain new pharmaceuticals, and
similarly be very able to understand them (though given I now specialize in scale up, he may wonder at what I fret over). The moment he either pulls
out his computer programming or I pull out the Bioinformatical work I did for my masters, we are both at a disadvantage. He is less likely to
understand why I was investigating synthetic lethals for BRCA 1 and 2 breast cancers, and why I programmed R a certain way to elucidate that, and
I’d be looking at his coding going “umm?”. We are no longer subject matter experts, and it is harder to bootstrap.
It is why you hire a dentist to drill your teeth, not a physiotherapist. Both are health professionals, but they don’t understand the “important
bits” as well they don’t know they are that important.
He talks about “chemical reactions giving both dimers”. IF anyone is interested, they should google the idea of chemical chirality. Biological
molecules have a (for want of a better term), handedness. One is the naturally abundant one (almost exclusively) and one is not . He is correct, in a
lab flask, synthetically we have problems making chirally pure materials (though its not as hard as he implies, pharmaceuticals are often rife with
chirality, and the correct one at that). What he does not acknowledge is that we don’t make these biological molecules as they may have been made in
the early days of the planet. He has not factored in the conditions, for example what would this occurring on a rock face do to the chemistry? Hint
its been shown that a solid surface can induce certain chirality.
Thus Dr Tour is welcome to his views, but he’s not sharing all the data. On top of that, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism (which he is involved
in) is from a conservative Christian think tank. .
No scientist will ever say “We completely understand evolution, or how life began”, you do however get deniers stating “Scientists don’t
completely understand evolution” as a straw man argument.