It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

James M Tour on Origins of Life

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I said that because its a technical presentation. I mean presenting your credentials is great, but I'd respect actual information more than hearing your opinion




posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Ok so basically I am taking that to mean you don't have any. Your claiming to have information but you refuse to share it?



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   
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.

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.

Next

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.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

No, I am stating that unless you subscribe to the data bases, you will not get to read the papers. I am not pirating them, to settle an internet argument. As a published scientist, I don't defecate in my own area.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It is not a weak point neighbour. You could rename bits of anatomy, to try and win an argument. None the less it is part of a whole. The whole macro vs micro is a strawman. QED it is logical fallacy!



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   
So lets pose some questions:

Why is it that people who create these threads, will accept the word of a single, dissident scientist as to why “evolution is all wrong”, while the voice of the bulk of science is to be distrusted?
Similarly why are do they accept the word of people who are clearly not experts in an area, over those who are, if it has the argument they wish. Yet when someone who is not an expert in an area disagrees with them, they “don’t know what they are talking about”?
Why do they “ask for papers” to show something. Then when people ask the same of them, they balk, or post a youtube video?
Why is it they assume that any who disagree with them are atheists?

I am pretty damned sure it is something called conformation bias. Perhaps I am wrong, perchance it is hopeful optimism that their beliefs are validated through science. Thus missing the point, belief does not need proof, it just is.

SO lets make it clear.

If a scientist is going to say “All that well established science is wrong” you would expect them to both be “experts in the area” and “able to show this extraordinary claim, through extraordinary proof”. Not again a few statements, and power point slides.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change


evolution.berkeley.edu...

there is your information, noturtypical



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 01:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

WHAT A WONDERFUL tour-de-force of a presentation.

Loved it.

And, Planck was certainly right about new scientific truth requiring the old [high priests of the Religioin of Scientism] to die for the new discoveries to be accepted.

Great talk.Thanks



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

This has absolutely nothing to do with the chemical pathways involved in macroevolution.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden




No, I am stating that unless you subscribe to the data bases, you will not get to read the papers. I am not pirating them, to settle an internet argument. As a published scientist, I don't defecate in my own area.


Tour claims in the video no one understands it even at the highgest levels of these fields. All I am asking is for you to show us that someone does understand it by providing the available information. I wouldn't ask you for the information if I didn't want to read it...just set me on the right path since you are so highly qualified .....



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden




So lets pose some questions: Why is it that people who create these threads, will accept the word of a single, dissident scientist as to why “evolution is all wrong”, while the voice of the bulk of science is to be distrusted?


I don't care if its one scientist or one kid with down syndrome giving the information the facts stay the same. I judge the information not the person giving it, and its not just one scientist.

" In addition it gives rise to lethal errors in respect to evolutionary process. Neo-Darwinian evolution is uniformitarian in that it assumes that all process works the same way, so that evolution of enzymes or flower colors can be used as current proxies for study of evolution of the body plan. It erroneously assumes that change in protein coding sequence is the basic cause of change in developmental program; and it erroneously assumes that evolutionary change in body plan morphology occurs by a continuous process. All of these assumptions are basically counterfactual. This cannot be surprising, since the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis from which these ideas stem was a pre-molecular biology concoction focused on population genetics and adaptation natural history, neither of which have any direct mechanistic import for the genomic regulatory systems that drive embryonic development of the body plan."

"There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way."

"Interference with expression of any [multiply linked dGRNs] by mutation or experimental manipulation has severe effects on the phase of development that they initiate. This accentuates the selective conservation of the whole subcircuit, on pain of developmental catastrophe..."2"


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

We can go into protein folding next if you like?


The majority of Science used to say the Earth was flat. That doesn't make it so. The number of Scientist that agree with something is irrelevant. Science is not as objective as your pretending it is. People can't go against the mainstream position or do research on the topic without being black listed. That cliche slogan is retarded.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You may not care, however it is not the majority of the experts in a field indeed if we look at your second source Eric H Davidson, what you have posted does not support your argument. IF you read his works, and I have, he is mischaractarized by creationists (to his frustration before his death).

ncse.com...

So do go into protein folding. Go on! Your words, not misquoted scientists however. Nor selective quoting from papers.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I'll do that when you give me some information on the chemical pathways involved in macroevolution. Its not fair for me to be the only one putting out information. All I want is for you to show us all that their is actually information on this. I can't find it on my own so use your expertise and help me out.


Edit: You are really the king of just dismissing stuff with general statements rather than actual information. I didn't say anything about his work. I just presented it and let it speak for itself.
edit on 19-7-2016 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I've told you there is no such thing as macroevolution. It is just evolution. Just as there is no such thing as "macrogravity" or "macro magnetism". It is what it is.

So the chemistry involved, would be the chemistry of DNA and RNA. Pick up a chemistry or biochemistry text book.

You have already stated you don't understand the intial video you posted, thus if I posted the mechanisms, you would be lost. By your own admission. I only teach those who pay me
But read these and I will answer some questions for you.

www.rsc.org...
www.sciencedirect.com...



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I'll read thru it but its going to take me a while to respond.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   
On micro vs macro: Take a man in the early stages of hair loss. Take a photo of him every day until the last hair falls from his head. Comparing a photo from day 1 to day 2 will show little to no variation in his appearance. The same between days 2 and 3, 3 and 4 and so on and so on. Those comparison are the "micro evolution" if his hairline. Now compare a photo from day 1 to a photo from day 1825 (roughly 5 years of hair loss). There will me a marked difference between the two photos. This is a snapshot of "macro evolution", yet the process never changed. Micro evolution and macro evolution are the same thing. They just compare different points on a singular time line.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

No hurry



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Syphon

We've tried similar explanations to these folks (not the hair, its a sore point, and I blame my mothers father
) they ignore them.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Syphon




There will me a marked difference between the two photos. This is a snapshot of "macro evolution", yet the process never changed. Micro evolution and macro evolution are the same thing. They just compare different points on a singular time line.


You need new proteins, you need new protein folds, You need new chemical pathways. You are making this seem trivial but its no where near as trivial as your pretending it is. For example Eye Evolution. First you need a light sensitive cell, which requires a lot of new information in and of itself, but for arguments sake lets just give that to you. In order to get from light sensitive cell to working eyeball that would be selected is not simple as saying change the DNA randomly for a long period of time.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I am tempted to offer to buy you a ticket to speak with Professor Tour, as long as I can be present during the conversation so I can hear you explain all his misunderstandings to him.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join