Origin of Life

[Dimi95]

There is an on-going debate in Harvard between Dr.Lee Carina and Dr.James Tour about Orign of Life.

Dr. Lee Cronin vs Dr. James Tour Debate at Harvard Cambridge Faculty Roundtable the Origin of Life

UPDATE: After watching the debate, see the commentary provided by Dr. Hector Zenil.☞ https://youtu.be/X5dSkY1Mv-0If you would like to support us in creating ...

www.youtube.com

There is information here that can be discussed..

 

[siti]

Thanks for that link...enjoyed a bit of the discussion...the best contributions were from neither Cronin nor Tour who seemed to be most concerned about outscoring each other in a more-or-less-politely-phrased insult competition. I think Larry Constantine made the most insightful remark about 2/3rds of the way in when he talked about Prigogine and non-equilibrium thermodynamics. I'm pretty sure that's where the best clues as to the origin of life (and indeed complexity more generally) will emerge from.

 

[Khabeni412]

James Tour isn't a credible source. He is a creationist that refuses to admit he has been proven wrong on many occasions. The scientific community ignores him because he lies.

 

[McBell]

There is an on-going debate in Harvard between Dr.Lee Carina and Dr.James Tour about Orign of Life.

Dr. Lee Cronin vs Dr. James Tour Debate at Harvard Cambridge Faculty Roundtable the Origin of Life

UPDATE: After watching the debate, see the commentary provided by Dr. Hector Zenil.☞ https://youtu.be/X5dSkY1Mv-0If you would like to support us in creating ...

www.youtube.com

There is information here that can be discussed..

Really should warn people that the video is 3 hours 11 minutes long

 

[exchemist]

James Tour isn't a credible source. He is a creationist that refuses to admit he has been proven wrong on many occasions. The scientific community ignores him because he lies.

Absolutely. He's a Messianic Jew with an axe to grind. In terms of qualifications, he's a synthetc organic chemist with no background in biochemistry and has done no work in the field of abiogenesis research.

Tour likes to parade his qualifications as a chemist in front of audiences of religious fundamentalists to impress them, as they don't know any better. He is also deceitful. I have posted at length about this on other threads, some time ago.

 

[Dimi95]

I have posted at length about this on other threads, some time ago.

If it is not a problem i would like to see your answers.

It is true that he has not worked in the field of Abiogenesis, but that does not mean that he does not understand chemistry.

I assume that you are more quialified to talk about chemistry , so i would like to see your answers.

If it is also not a problem , please avoid lectures on philosophy and deception , i would like to see answers based on Science.

 

[PureX]

The answer does not lay in the chemistry. It lays in the possibilities and impossibilities that control the forces that control the chemistry. And so far we humans have no clue about that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The answer does not lay in the chemistry. It lays in the possibilities and impossibilities that control the forces that control the chemistry.

You're saying that chemistry is the result of the laws of physics, which is of course correct, or more properly a subset of physics.

so far we humans have no clue about that.

That's incorrect. Those forces and particles and their properties are well characterized.

If it is not a problem i would like to see your answers.

You can find that yourself with an RF search. Try these search parameters. It will give the list that follows that links to several threads where he commented on Tour

 

[exchemist]

If it is not a problem i would like to see your answers.

It is true that he has not worked in the field of Abiogenesis, but that does not mean that he does not understand chemistry.

I assume that you are more quialified to talk about chemistry , so i would like to see your answers.

If it is also not a problem , please avoid lectures on philosophy and deception , i would like to see answers based on Science.

Most of it is in this thread: Shocking claim to Macro-evolution!. You would probably do best to read the whole thing, to get the full context. But the bit that shocked me was the deception in the video we were discussing, my criticism of which is mostly in my post 174 on that thread, which I copy/paste below to save any other readers the trouble:

"Just watched part of this and it is quite shocking.

There is no question that Tour was playing to the audience (of Baptist theologians*) by deliberately misrepresenting what Szostak was saying.

- He lied by falsely claiming that Szostak's article in Nature was a research paper when it was a cartoon summary for a bit of light relief and clearly marked as such.

- He lied by falsely telling his audience that glyceraldehyde: Glyceraldehyde - Wikipedia is not a simple sugar

- He lied by claiming ribose linked to a cyclic heterocyclic base was not a potential building block for an early RNA molecule.

He had a lot of fun with the audience, who naturally lapped it up, as it is what they wanted to hear. But an alert undergraduate chemist in the audience would have immediately spotted the misrepresentation.

It seems plain that Tour is, as I suggested in an earlier post, driven by the religious axe he has to grind to connive in spreading falsehoods, exploiting his status as a chemist to fool people who are in no position to challenge him. It is rather a disgusting exhibition.



* I had no idea such beasts existed. Why do you need theologians if you get your faith directly from a literal reading of the bible?"

(Tour ended up apologising to Szostak for misrepresenting him.)

He offers no argument against natural abogenesis other than his own personal incredulity. Since he has no background in the relevat science, that personal opinion is not worth a lot.

 

[Dimi95]

That's incorrect. Those forces and particles and their properties are well characterized.

I have a question , it is somehow connected to what you said and what @PureX said.

Is there any possibility that can describe the forces as guided and not automatic and blind?

 

[exchemist]

I have a question , it is somehow connected to what you said and what @PureX said.

Is there any possibility that can describe the forces as guided and not automatic and blind?

One point to note is that we do not know why the fundamental interactions of nature have the form they do, nor why they are apparently constantly present, nor why they should exist at all. They just are.

The mere fact that there is such underlying order in nature is something that gives pause for thought. Einstein, and before him Spinoza, seemed to identify this order in the universe with God.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is there any possibility that can describe the forces as guided and not automatic and blind?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. What would guided forces be? Forces that can be set or modified by an intelligence, as with a miracle in which the biochemicals (enzymes, nucleic acids, neurotransmitters, hormones) and subcellular structures (ribosomes, mitochondrial cristae, cell membranes) of a body three days decomposed reorganize into a living thing? If that's what you mean - miracles, or the suspension or modification of the laws of nature - you can propose that that happens, and I don't see how anybody can say that that is impossible, but presently, we have no evidence that it does.

 

[Dimi95]

One point to note is that we do not know why the fundamental interactions of nature have the form they do, nor why they are apparently constantly present, nor why they should exist at all. They just are.

I would also add Cause to what you explained.

Universal causation is the proposition that everything in the universe has a cause and is thus an effect of that cause.

You can say 'matter could always existed' , but the fact that the Universe is expanding suggests that at some point it had a begining.

So that leads further to the universal causation and more questions.

So for me , In order for Cause to come into existence , it had to be uncaused , otherwise we have infinite regression.

This is 'out of the topic' , but i just wanted to share my thought.

However I think that we will find more answers in the future on many fields.

 

[Dimi95]

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. What would guided forces be? Forces that can be set or modified by an intelligence, as with a miracle in which the biochemicals (enzymes, nucleic acids, neurotransmitters, hormones) and subcellular structures (ribosomes, mitochondrial cristae, cell membranes) of a body three days decomposed reorganize into a living thing? If that's what you mean - miracles, or the suspension or modification of the laws of nature - you can propose that that happens, and I don't see how anybody can say that that is impossible, but presently, we have no evidence that it does.

What i have noted.

I just wanted to know is there a possibility.

 

[exchemist]

I would also add Cause to what you explained.

Universal causation is the proposition that everything in the universe has a cause and is thus an effect of that cause.

You can say 'matter could always existed' , but the fact that the Universe is expanding suggests that at some point it had a begining.

So that leads further to the universal causation and more questions.

So for me , In order for Cause to come into existence , it had to be uncaused , otherwise we have infinite regression.

This is 'out of the topic' , but i just wanted to share my thought.

However I think that we will find more answers in the future on many fields.

I certainly think it makes a lot more sense to see the role of the Creator in such things, rather than the creationist notion of a God who makes the rules but then keeps having to interfere via miracles to get he results He wants.

 

[Bthoth]

The answer does not lay in the chemistry. It lays in the possibilities and impossibilities that control the forces that control the chemistry. And so far we humans have no clue about that.

Chemistry does not represent natures processes correctly.

 

[Dimi95]

I certainly think it makes a lot more sense to see the role of the Creator in such things, rather than the creationist notion of a God who makes the rules but then keeps having to interfere via miracles to get he results He wants.

I am not enough qualified to talk about some fields in Science , but i would talk about morality.

I want to open topic regarding Christianity , maybe we can talk more about that there.

Neverthless , i am going to read your answers about chemistry and i will look into notes that i saved from other chemisist and maybe we can continue the discussion here.

 

[exchemist]

Chemistry does not represent natures processes correctly.

Can you give examples?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have a question , it is somehow connected to what you said and what @PureX said.

Is there any possibility that can describe the forces as guided and not automatic and blind?

There is a possibility that abiogenesis could have been directed. There currently is no evidence for it.

Here is the problem, a possibility does not do anyone any good. With a possibility one is off into the area of Bigfoot and leprechauns. What one needs is evidence for one's ideas. That evidence has to come from people that believe in an idea. And creationists tend to hate the fact that to have evidence one has to honestly consider what it would take for them to be wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you give examples?

All of the times that I got an F in chemistry lab