Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Unbelievable: James Tour vs. Lee Cronin on origin of life

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Nanotechnology Prof James (Jim) Tour & Glasgow biology Lee Cronin debate contemporary Origins of Life research and whether Lee’s lab is on the way to discovering it.

Prof James (Jim) Tour: “Tour has over 700 research publications and over 130 patent families, with an h-index = 143 and i10 index = 644 with total citations of ~100,000 (Google Scholar). Based on the impact of his published work, in 2019 Tour was ranked in the top 0.004% of the 7 million scientists who have published at least 5 papers in their careers. ”

Lee Cronin:“A professor of chemistry, nanoscience and chemical complexity, Lee Cronin and his research group investigate how chemistry can revolutionize modern technology and even create life.”

Serious radio.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips – origin of life What we do and don’t know about the origin of life.

Comments
Once Dr Cronin gets the OOL figured out, they could reinvest part of the $10M prize back in research in order to figure out how to get the below thing working: Diurnal regulation of SDG2 and JMJ14 by circadian clock oscillators orchestrates histone modification rhythms in Arabidopsis
Circadian rhythms modulate growth and development in all organisms through interlocking transcriptional-translational feedback loops. The transcriptional loop involves chromatin modifications of central circadian oscillators in mammals and plants. However, the molecular basis for rhythmic epigenetic modifications and circadian regulation is poorly understood.
Circadian clock genes promote diurnal regulation of SDG2 and JMJ14 expression, which in turn regulate rhythmic histone modification dynamics for the clock and its output genes. This reciprocal regulatory module between chromatin modifiers and circadian clock oscillators orchestrates diurnal gene expression that governs plant growth and development.
Further examination of additional histone marks will provide a comprehensive view for diurnal rhythms of histone modifications and gene expression.
How histone methyltransferases and histone demethylases are recruited to their target genes remains unknown.
It will be interesting to further test how specific transcription factors including circadian clock regulators recruit other histone methyltransferases and demethylases to establish rhythmic histone modifications that exert growth and developmental regulation in plants and animals.
OLV
April 20, 2020
April
04
Apr
20
20
2020
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
The awarding of the Evo2.0 OOL $10M prize seems less probable every time we look at the scientific literature. Rockets, gauges, and pendulums: applying engineering principles to cell biology
From flight to radar to Velcro, biological form and function have inspired engineers for centuries. It is equally valuable to consider whether concepts in engineering might provide insights into core biological processes. To explore this idea, cell cycle checkpoints, biological clocks, and signaling pathways are viewed here from an engineering perspective. Engineering concepts covered include gauge error, the distinction between precision and accuracy, and the Taguchi method of robust design. Also discussed is the Pareto principle, which describes the observation that, in complex systems, a minority of the components (or inputs) are responsible for a majority of the outputs. These concepts enable engineers to manage complexity, both in system design and in operation. Thus, with new techniques and large data sets revealing ever-increasing levels of biological complexity, an engineering mindset may be particularly valuable for the study of living systems.
Nonequilibrium physics in biology
Life is characterized by a myriad of complex dynamic processes allowing organisms to grow, reproduce, and evolve. Physical approaches for describing systems out of thermodynamic equilibrium have been increasingly applied to living systems, which often exhibit phenomena not found in those traditionally studied in physics. Spectacular advances in experimentation during the last decade or two, for example, in microscopy, single-cell dynamics, in the reconstruction of subcellular and multicellular systems outside of living organisms, and in high throughput data acquisition, have yielded an unprecedented wealth of data on cell dynamics, genetic regulation, and organismal development. These data have motivated the development and refinement of concepts and tools to dissect the physical mechanisms underlying biological processes. Notably, landscape and flux theory as well as active hydrodynamic gel theory have proven useful in this endeavor. Together with concepts and tools developed in other areas of nonequilibrium physics, significant progress has been made in unraveling the principles underlying efficient energy transport in photosynthesis, cellular regulatory networks, cellular movements and organization, embryonic development and cancer, neural network dynamics, population dynamics and ecology, as well as aging, immune responses, and evolution. Here recent advances in nonequilibrium physics are reviewed and their application to biological systems is surveyed. Many of these results are expected to be important cornerstones as the field continues to build our understanding of life.
OLV
March 19, 2020
March
03
Mar
19
19
2020
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
As more research sheds light on the functional complexity of the complex functionality of the biological systems, it seems like the goalposts are constantly moving farther away from Dr Cronin's ideas. BMP and WNT signalling cooperate through LEF1 in the neuronal specification of adult hippocampal neural stem and progenitor cells Nature 2018
the role of BMPs/BMPRs during adult neurogenesis is much more complex than was previously thought.
OLV
March 7, 2020
March
03
Mar
7
07
2020
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
The evo 2.0 prize webpage says:
WHAT QUESTIONS DOES EVOLUTION 2.0 PRIZE SEEK TO ANSWER? How could the genetic code come into being? How do you get from chemicals to this code that both builds the cell and is acted upon by the cell – DNA? Where did the information in DNA come from? How do living things repair and heal themselves, adapt to any situation and act purposefully? How do cells “know” how to evolve? What do cells know that we don’t? These are central questions in the history of science. Currently, no one has answers.
This means that Dr. Cronin’s work apparently has not much to do with the Evo 2.0 prize.jawa
March 6, 2020
March
03
Mar
6
06
2020
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
How could Lee Cronin create life? I recall that at least twice in the program he could not provide any characteristics of what constitutes "life". How will he know it if he should create it?ymeynot
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
Chuckdarwin:
I would offer the opinion that Prof. Tour is ultimately going to damage his credibility if he keeps allowing the Discovery Institute to co-opt his work and name.
I would offer that you are an insipid troll who doesn't know what it is talking about.
He seems to be a credible scientist who is naïve to the ideological agenda being pursued by the ID folks.
Figuring out the truth behind our existence is not an ideological agenda. Understanding that blind watchmaker evolution is untestable and unscientific, is not an ideological agenda.
I think he acknowledged that Cronin is pursuing a serious research program and indicated that if Cronin and his lab are successful in developing life criteria to satisfy the Evolution 2.0 prize, he would accept the results.
And if Cronin et al., fail, what then? Would Cronin become an IDist? If not, why not?ET
March 3, 2020
March
03
Mar
3
03
2020
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
Chuckdarwin is worried that James Tour,
"is ultimately going to damage his credibility if he keeps allowing the Discovery Institute to co-opt his work and name. He seems to be a credible scientist who is naïve to the ideological agenda being pursued by the ID folks."
Really??? This coming from a guy who goes by the handle "Chuckdarwin" Let me let you in on a little secret Mr. "Chuckdarwin". Charles Darwin himself, as well as all modern day Darwinists, was and are driven by an "ideological agenda" and are certainly not driven by the science. In fact Charles Darwin book "Origin Of Species", far from being a scientific text that was filled with experimentation and mathematics, was far more of a theological argument that was based on faulty theological presuppositions, (S. Dilley, P. Nelson). In fact Darwin himself was trained in Theology, not math or anything else that would be considered foundational to creating a brand new field of science. Moreover, Darwin himself said that he found mathematics to be "repugnant." Which is just as well, mathematics itself finds Darwin's theory to be "repugnant" as well as absurd in the highest degree.
Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance – video (2017) https://youtu.be/W1_KEVaCyaA
Moreover, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, modern day Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept any empirical evidence that falsifies their theory. And thus, since they simply refuse to accept falsification as a criteria, and, according to Popper's criteria of falsification, Darwinian evolution "does not speak about reality” in the first place.
“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” ? Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery
Let that sink in Mr. Chuckie,,, "does not speak about reality.” Darwin himself admitted that his 'one long argument' did not really qualify as a science, i.e. "“I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”
Anti-Science Irony Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution. http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/10/anti-science-irony/ On top of that, "Darwin, warned Sedgwick, had made claims well beyond the limits of science. Darwin issued truths that were not likely ever to be found anywhere “but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.” An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation - Cornelius Hunter - Dec. 22, 2012 Excerpt: "Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?" (Sedgwick to Darwin - 1859),,, And anticipating the fixity-of-species strawman, Sedgwick explained to the Sage of Kent (Darwin) that he had conflated the observable fact of change of time (development) with the explanation of how it came about. Everyone agreed on development, but the key question of its causes and mechanisms remained. Darwin had used the former as a sort of proof of a particular explanation for the latter. “We all admit development as a fact of history;” explained Sedgwick, “but how came it about?”,,, For Darwin, warned Sedgwick, had made claims well beyond the limits of science. Darwin issued truths that were not likely ever to be found anywhere “but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.” The fertile womb of man’s imagination. What a cogent summary of evolutionary theory. Sedgwick made more correct predictions in his short letter than all the volumes of evolutionary literature to come. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/an-early-critique-of-darwin-warned-of.html
Thus Mr. Chuckdarwin if you were really as concerned with 'credibility', as you are pretending to be with Dr. Tour, then you would, first and foremost, change your handle from "Chuckdarwin". Darwin was a terrible scientist and an even worse Theologian. It simply destroys any credibility that you yourself might want to establish for yourself to use "Chuckdarwin". Now if you want to have a handle that is 'credible' might I suggest "Robert Boyle" as a handle?
"So numberless a multitude, and so great a variety of birds, beasts, fishes, reptiles, herbs, shrubs, trees, stones, metals, minerals, stars, and everyone of them plentifully furnished and endowed with all the qualifications requisite to the attainment of the respective ends of its creation, are productions of a wisdom too limitless not to be peculiar to God: ... which do all of them deserve that extensive exclamation of the Psalmist, “How manifold are thy works, 0 Lord; in wisdom hast thou made them all.”" [Psalm 104:24] — Robert Boyle (1627 - 1691), father of experimental chemistry
bornagain77
March 3, 2020
March
03
Mar
3
03
2020
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
I heard on the radio that genetic analysis at a flu research facility in Washington state indicates that COVID-19 was circulating in the general population over a year ago.Seversky
March 3, 2020
March
03
Mar
3
03
2020
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
@50 Jim Thibodeau
There is now a coronavirus case at Lackland Air Force Base, where I did basic training many decades ago. “Off we go, into the wild blue yonder…”
Yep. 'Natural' selection in action. It has been happening for billions of years. Humans are not special, just another type of DNA arrangement. Nothing matters, it is just 'nature' doing its thang.Truthfreedom
March 3, 2020
March
03
Mar
3
03
2020
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT
Jawa, why does the age invalidate anything? My point was that I haven’t respected much of lee Cronin since this. He still pushed this outAaronS1978
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT
A living cell is a description based organization; having the dynamic freedom to describe itself as well as any variation of itself. To accomplish this feat of physical independence, it uses a system of discontinuous association to establish a multi-referent medium, then uses that medium to describe a semantically-closed dissipative process, plus a description of the means to interpret the description. Each of these requirements are carefully detailed in the physics literature and Lee Cronin has not accomplished any of them.Upright BiPed
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
There is now a coronavirus case at Lackland Air Force Base, where I did basic training many decades ago. “Off we go, into the wild blue yonder...”Jim Thibodeau
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
AaronS1978 @48: That article is based on a paper that is over 10 years old.jawa
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT
JVL @ 29 https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20906-life-like-cells-are-made-of-metal/ The part that sets me off and this is when he says it’s evolving UD did a piece on this a while back toAaronS1978
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
I would offer the opinion that Prof. Tour is ultimately going to damage his credibility if he keeps allowing the Discovery Institute to co-opt his work and name. He seems to be a credible scientist who is naïve to the ideological agenda being pursued by the ID folks. He, at least twice in the Unbelievable discussion with Prof. Cronin, explicitly tried to distance himself from the ID movement. He couldn't have been much more clear on that point, and, in fact, brought the issue up spontaneously because the discussion wasn't even going in that direction. I think he acknowledged that Cronin is pursuing a serious research program and indicated that if Cronin and his lab are successful in developing life criteria to satisfy the Evolution 2.0 prize, he would accept the results. It will be interesting to see how the Discovery Institute and its allied publications and affiliates spin this discussion. UD replies: Why would there be any need to "spin" it? If Cronin demonstrates that life can be generated by blind and mindless natural forces, then ID will have been falsified. If ID is falsified, we would expect the Discovery Institute to admit it and fold up shop. You see, unlike Darwinian evolution, ID is falsifiable. BTW, we are not holding our breath waiting for Cronin to demonstrate the life can be formed from blind and mindless natural forces.chuckdarwin
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
Jawa, 44: I noticed the same problem lately. It's annoying. I'm trying to respond quickly out of respect but I hate making mistakes that might impeded comprehension or conversation.JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
Jawa, 43: Was your question @19 (cited @39) pertinent, considering what we have seen here? I was just wondering. I'm allowed to wonder and ask. And you're allowed to ignore or criticise or whatever.JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
JVL @42: “ By the way, my ability to edit my posts after initially posting them has vanished for some reason so apologies for uncaught spelling and grammatical errors.” I noticed the same problem lately.jawa
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
JVL, Was your question @19 (cited @39) pertinent, considering what we have seen here?jawa
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom: 40: If they were neither ‘random’, nor ‘constrained’, what were they then? Like I said, I may just have a personal bias against constrained. Environmental conditions depend on the interaction between many, many factors. Geography is a big factor which influences a whole range of conditions which will affect who 'wins' and who loses. Earth has a large satellite, the Moon, which gives us tides which have an effect. Earth is considered to be in the 'Goldilock zone' so we have temperatures conducive for liquid water. Earth has a strong magnetic field which has a big effect. I do not consider any of these 'random'. If you want to say they are constrained that's fine with me. By the way, my ability to edit my posts after initially posting them has vanished for some reason so apologies for uncaught spelling and grammatical errors.JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Jawa, 39: The current discussion started here with this OP itself. Actually you posted the first comment. I was just promoting the programme as a whole, not necessarily this particular episode. I think everyone should listen to Unbelievable. BTW, other contributors have commented on your comments here. And I have been replying.JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
@39 JVL
I don’t think temperature or humidity or altitude or mineral content or seasonal variation, etc are random. I would not say constrained though but that just be a personal connotation.
If they were neither 'random', nor 'constrained', what were they then?Truthfreedom
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
JVL @19: “ Are you just trying to start a discussion and no one else wants to participate?” No, you’ve got that wrong. You started our discussion by asking an question about an off topic irrelevant thing in another thread. The current discussion started here with this OP itself. Actually you posted the first comment. BTW, other contributors have commented on your comments here.jawa
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom, 37: So those original ‘environmental pressures’ were not ‘random’? Does that mean they were ‘constrained’? I don't think temperature or humidity or altitude or mineral content or seasonal variation, etc are random. I would not say constrained though but that just be a personal connotation.JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
@31 JVL
Not purely random processes though. Environmental pressures would allow some to survive and reproduce and some not.
So those original 'environmental pressures' were not 'random'? Does that mean they were 'constrained'?Truthfreedom
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
Jawa, 35: Are you really interested in serious discussions on important topics or gossiping about off topic irrelevant things? I am trying to answer your questions honestly without being rude or casting aspersions on others' view or style. I'd like to be as fair as possible to everyone.JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
JVL, Are you really interested in serious discussions on important topics or gossiping about off topic irrelevant things?jawa
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
Jawa, 32: Did Dr Cronin sound 100% clear, coherent, serious and honest in the discussed debate and in the previous Unbelievable discussion he had with Perry Marshal and Denis Noble late last year? He sounded sincere in both cases. I don't think he was able (or even tried very hard) to present all the technical data but I wasn't expecting him to do so on a non-technical radio interview programme. BTW, do you know the requirements for the Evo2.0 $10M prize? Nope, I know nothing about it.JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
Jawa, 27: Do you agree with Dr Tour’s arguments presented in the Unbelievable debate? Any objection? I may be incorrect but I don't believe he was specifically arguing against life having arose through unguided processes; he seemed to be saying that it's all very complicated and that Dr Cronin was not even close yet. But he did say, at one point, that if Dr Cronin was successful he would accept the results and that it would not shake his faith. I thought that was pretty fair.JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
JVL, Did Dr Cronin sound 100% clear, coherent, serious and honest in the discussed debate and in the previous Unbelievable discussion he had with Perry Marshal and Denis Noble late last year? BTW, do you know the requirements for the Evo2.0 $10M prize?jawa
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply