We like everything except the target on the guy’s back.
Comments
Dr. Tour's presentation is absolutely brilliant! And funny in places and brutal in others.
We've certainly been misled in the name of science. OOL promises reminds me of alchemists trying to turn lead into gold . . . and they thought they were "so close."
-Q Querius
Looks like they still cannot step up to the plate to address Dr Tour on the merits . . . kairosfocus
Artificial life? No. Never. Exploiting existing organisms through modification to produce biological material with commercial value? Sure. relatd
I am still rooting for artificial synthesis of life within 100 years. He suggests 500.
What about never ? Sandy
A serious argument from a serious man. Though, I am still rooting for artificial synthesis of life within 100 years. He suggests 500. kairosfocus
Jerry at 2,
What a negative, negative reply. No one knows anything and those who do will lie to you? Sorry, but that's illogical. Things are getting done. I follow the research, and a lot of research is getting done. Evolution is a scam.
I know people who are very educated and they can show me their evidence. That speaks for itself. THE MEDIA, on the other hand, is a combination VOICE OF TERROR/PROPAGANDA MACHINE. relatd
As Hans Rosling and William Briggs have pointed out, the more educated you are the more likely you will be to misinformation.
No better examples of deception than modern science, whether it is OOL, climate, Evolution, the virus and treatment of it or any other topic that generates money. Of course history, social policy and economics get a massive amount of disinformation too.
MSO. jerry
It’s a mystery.
I watched a video yesterday on Evolution. After jumping from Evolution is a fact, the term “Evolution” became small genetic changes over time. Instead of saying we don’t know, the very popular author begged the question and jumped to small changes accumulated over eons. Ironically he brought up the
Adriatic wall lizards that changed in 30 years but only genetically in alleles already there. He demonstrated natural selection but not the development of something not already there.
Interesting, if you point this out, you will be accused of a “God of the Gaps” argument. They don’t want people to know they don’t know.
But in an argument for design of the universe, there is a plethora of information. No “God of the Gaps” here just nonsense as an alternative to fine tuning.
Which is it, too little or too much? Or is it just a mystery?
Aside: Behe once described the issue as a mystery. jerry