Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Death Knell for Life from an RNA world

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The RNA world hypothesis, to be true, has to overcome  major hurdles:

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2024-the-rna-world-and-the-origins-of-life#3414

1. Life uses only right-handed RNA and DNA. The homochirality problem is unsolved. This is an “intractable problem” for chemical evolution
2. RNA has been called a “prebiotic chemist’s nightmare” because of its combination of large size, carbohydrate building blocks, bonds that are thermodynamically unstable in water, and overall intrinsic instability. Many bonds in RNA are thermodynamically unstable with respect to hydrolysis in water, creating a “water problem”. Finally, some bonds in RNA appear to be “impossible” to form under any conditions considered plausible for early Earth.   In chemistry, when free energy is applied to organic matter without Darwinian evolution, the matter devolves to become more and more “asphaltic”, as the atoms in the mixture are rearranged to give ever more molecular species. In the resulting “asphaltization”, what was life comes to display fewer and fewer characteristics of life.
3. Systems of interconnected software and hardware like in the cell are irreducibly complex and interdependent. There is no reason for information processing machinery to exist without the software and vice versa.
4. A certain minimum level of complexity is required to make self-replication possible at all; high-fidelity replication requires additional functionalities that need even more information to be encoded
5. RNA catalysts would have had to copy multiple sets of RNA blueprints nearly as accurately as do modern-day enzymes
6. In order a molecule to be a self-replicator, it has to be a homopolymer, of which the backbone must have the same repetitive units; they must be identical. In the prebiotic world, the generation of a homopolymer was however impossible.
7. Not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (10^24) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences.  
8. Over time, organic molecules break apart as fast as they form
9. How could and would random events attach a phosphate group to the right position of a ribose molecule to provide the necessary chemical activity? And how would non-guided random events be able to attach the nucleic bases to the ribose?  The coupling of ribose with a nucleotide is the first step to form RNA, and even those engrossed in prebiotic research have difficulty envisioning that process, especially for purines and pyrimidines.”
10. L. E. Orgel:  The myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist’s view of RNA’s catalytic potential.
11. Macromolecules do not spontaneously combine to form macromolecules
125. The transition from RNA to DNA is an unsolved problem. 
13. To go from a self-replicating RNA molecule to a self-replicating cell is like to go from a house building block to a fully built house. 
14. Arguably one of the most outstanding problems in understanding the progress of early life is the transition from the RNA world to the modern protein-based world. 31
15. It is thought that the boron minerals needed to form RNA from pre-biotic soups were not available on early Earth in sufficient quantity, and the molybdenum minerals were not available in the correct chemical form. 33
16. Given the apparent limitation of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) genomes to about 30 kb, together with the complexity of DNA synthesis, it appears dif¢cult for a dsRNA genome to encode all the information required before the transition from an RNA to a DNA genome. Ribonucleotide reductase itself, which synthesizes deoxyribonucleotides from ribonucleotides, requires complex protein radical chemistry, and RNA world genomes may have reached their limits of coding capacity well before such complex enzymes had evolved.

Comments
Bornagain77: Whatever JVL. please don’t sully Dr. Tour’s good scientific name by associating it with that scientific fraud named Charles Darwin whose pseudo-scientific theory has done so much harm to human societies. When did I even begin to associate them? What is the matter with you? And, let's be clear: Darwin changed the scientific landscape. Dr Tour hasn't come close to that. If you're going to just keep knee-jerk reacting to a word or phrase instead of taking the time to read and understand an actual argument then people really are going to stop taking you seriously. Not saying that anyone takes you seriously now to be honest. In fact, I am quite sure that a majority of people reading this blog do not even attempt to parse most of your posts. And, since I've found times when your links are broken and sometimes they don't even link to what you think they link to . . . why should anyone take you seriously? It's not just about looking like you're doing something for what you perceive is good; you actually have to be making good arguments and substantiated claims. Just having a library of quotes and references (which you don't seem to update often enough) just doesn't cut it. It doesn't keep you up-to-date. It doesn't account for the latest data. It makes you look like a quote miner. AND, let's remember, the conversation was about Dr James Tour. You attempted to hijack the thread. And then you had to back down. That's the truth isn't it?JVL
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Here's a photo of a can of Prebiotic Soup. https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-origin-of-liferelatd
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus @30,
Q, in part the issue is, what do you mean by “gold”? Redefine appropriately and voila by agreed convention the alchemists did make gold.
Excellent point! Let me elaborate: This reminds of when I was actually able to duplicate what was likely the FIRST proto-cellular life on earth in test tubes in my lab in Junior High School! I'm aware that life needs to exhibit the following characteristics. The earliest life of course will exhibit only minimal signs of these four characteristics, which includes the following: 1. Some form of semipermeable cell membrane separating internal from external. In my experiments, the protocell membranes were nearly spherical as expected. The presence of prebiotic organic molecules in the aqueous solution dramatically enhances membrane longevity. The membrane is semipermeable as evidenced by the natural diffusion of gases between the aqueous environment and the internal air sac of the protocells. 2. Metabolism. When two protocells come into contact, typically the larger one engages in phagocytosis, quickly consuming the smaller one, and becomes engorged in the process. 3. Reproduction. When sufficiently engorged, the protocells reproduce via simple fission into two or more protocells, often promoted by mechanical agitation. 4. Response to environmental stimuli. The protocells were observed to migrate to the surface of the aqueous solution, travel outward along the meniscus, and adhere to the sides of the test tubes due to capillary action, where they often form multicellular colonies. Formation. To form these protocells, the procedure was surprisingly simple and could form spontaneously from two independent methods: (1) By vigorous mechanical agitation, and (2) by heating the aqueous solution. While I chose to shake the test tubes manually, it is fairly obvious that wind, tidal, and wave action against geologic features in the early earth were the original means. Also, the action of the sun on small bodies of water would heat them, also forming these protocells spontaneously. From there, the aggregation and concentration of prebiotic organic molecules on the protocell membranes together with environmental action such as solar radiation, electrical discharges, ionizing terrestrial and extraterrestrial radiation, early-earth chemistry in all four phases together with non-directed, incremental evolutionary changes over millions of years was then initiated, resulting in the vast diversity and complexity of life on earth! I called them “bubbles.” -QQuerius
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Martin_r at 39, You do realize that astronomers are stilling looking for planets in "habitable zones." Translation: These planets are the right distance from their sun and could have liquid water.relatd
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
Off topic, but let me share this beautiful thought:
The reason we think that intelligent design was behind the human body is that there's literally no other way for this system of systems of this kind to come into existence - Steve Laufmann, engineer (co-author of YOUR DESIGNED BODY book.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAW8SBPvzi0
Now, biologists have to demonstrate, that the above claim is not true ... Biologists are free to use shining light, lightnings, x-rays, hot vents, rotten meat, purchased chemical kits, spectrometers, thermometers, scales, microscopes, freezers, computers, robots, they can use whatever they want to use :)))))))))))))))))martin_r
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Whatever JVL. please don't sully Dr. Tour's good scientific name by associating it with that scientific fraud named Charles Darwin whose pseudo-scientific theory has done so much harm to human societies.
James Tour - awards Tour became a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry in 2020 and was awarded the Royal Society of Chemistry's Centenary Prize for innovations in materials chemistry with applications in medicine and nanotechnology.[53] Tour was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015.[54] He was named among "The 50 most Influential Scientists in the World Today" by TheBestSchools.org in 2014.[55] Tour was named "Scientist of the Year" by R&D Magazine in 2013.[56] Tour won the ACS Nano Lectureship Award from the American Chemical Society in 2012. Tour was ranked one of the top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade by Thomson Reuters in 2009. That year, he was also made a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Other notable awards won by Tour include the 2008 Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology, the NASA Space Act Award in 2008 for his development of carbon nanotube reinforced elastomers, the Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award from the American Chemical Society (ACS) for his achievements in organic chemistry in 2007, the Small Times magazine's Innovator of the Year Award in 2006, the Southern Chemist of the Year Award from ACS in 2005, the Honda Innovation Award for Nanocars in 2005, the NSF Presidential Young Investigator Award in 1990, and the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award in 1989. In 2005, Tour's journal article "Directional Control in Thermally Driven Single-Molecule Nanocars" was ranked the Most Accessed Journal Article by the American Chemical Society.[57] Tour has twice won the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching at Rice University in 2007 and 2012. In 2016, Tour was listed as an ISI highly cited researcher.[58] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tour#Awards
bornagain77
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
"providing LGBT healthcare to infants" If they can make it out alive first, they get a living hell. Andrewasauber
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: Certainly very many respectable scientist belong, and have belonged, to the Royal society, but the inclusion of Charles Darwin into that society certainly takes away from the claim that it is a “prestigious’ scientific society that is beyond any reproach. I didn't say the The Royal Society was prestigious; I was talking about The Royal Society of Chemistry AND I was saying just because it's NOT The Royal Society doesn't mean it's not prestigious. But you saw the name Darwin and just had to go off on a tangent with another copy-and-paste diatribe which had nothing to do with Dr James Tour which was who was being discussed.JVL
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
Not saying it’s not prestigious just that’s it not the same organisation that Newton and Darwin belonged to.
On the side issue of prestigious institutions, Harvard Medical School is now offering a course about providing LGBT healthcare to infants. The course is titled “Caring for Patients with Diverse Sexual Orientations, Gender Identities, and Sex Development.” The course description states, “clinical exposure and education will focus on serving gender and sexual minority people across the lifespan, from infants to older adults.”Origenes
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
"Not saying it’s not prestigious just that’s it not the same organisation that Newton and Darwin belonged to." Certainly very many respectable scientist belong, and have belonged, to the Royal society, but the inclusion of Charles Darwin into that society certainly takes away from the claim that it is a "prestigious' scientific society that is beyond any reproach. But then again, there was that Royal Society meeting in 2016 that openly questioned Darwinism as an adequate account of life on earth.
Why the Royal Society Meeting Mattered, in a Nutshell Evolution News - December 5, 2016 https://evolutionnews.org/2016/12/why_the_royal_s/ Royal Society by Richard William Nelson | Jul 28, 2016 In the native land of Charles Darwin, for the first time, the Royal Society is challenging evolution academia to develop a new theory of biological evolution. As the original science organization in western civilization, society explains the problem with today’s most popular current theory: “Developments in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields have produced calls for revision of the standard theory of evolution, although the issues involved remain hotly contested.”,,, https://darwinthenandnow.com/archives/8363/royal-society/
But I hold that 2016 meeting at the Royal Society questioning Darwin's theory was about 150 years, and over one hundred million lives, too late.
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/ From Adam Sedgwick - 24 November 1859 Cambridge My dear Darwin, Excerpt: I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous. You have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the true method of induction—& started up a machinery as wild I think as Bishop Wilkin’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the Moon. 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? As to your grand principle—natural selection—what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.,,, You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.,,, We all admit development as a fact of history; but how came it about?,,, There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro’ final cause , link material to moral; & yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, & our classification of such laws whether we consider one side of nature or the other— You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.,,, in speculating upon organic descent, you over state the evidence of geology; & that you under state it while you are talking of the broken links of your natural pedigree:,,, Lastly then, I greatly dislike the concluding chapter—not as a summary—for in that light it appears good—but I dislike it from the tone of triumphant confidence in which you appeal to the rising generation (in a tone I condemned in the author of the Vestiges),7 & prophesy of things not yet in the womb of time; nor, (if we are to trust the accumulated experience of human sense & the inferences of its logic) ever likely to be found any where but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination. - per Darwin project "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." - Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 Is Darwinism “Completely Worthless To Science”? - Michael Egnor - 2016 Excerpt: I despise Darwinism. It is, in my view, an utterly worthless scientific concept promulgated by a third-rate barnacle collector and hypochondriac to justify functional, if not explicit, atheism. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-darwinism-completely-worthless-to-science/ Oct. 2022 - And, (in what should not be surprising for anyone who has debated Darwinists for any length of time), it turns out that Darwinian evolution itself is not based on Bacon’s Inductive form of reasoning, (which is to say that Darwin’s theory itself is not based on the scientific method), but Darwin’s theory is instead based, in large measure, on the Deductive form of reasoning that Bacon had specifically shunned because of the fallibleness of man’s fallen sinful nature. https://uncommondescent.com/logic-and-first-principles-of-right-reason/at-reasons-org-i-think-therefore-it-must-be-true-part-1-the-science-of-belief/#comment-769075 What Hath Darwin Wrought?” investigates the shocking history of “social Darwinism” in America and Europe, including the eugenics crusade against the “unfit,” the euthanasia movement, Nazi genocide, and current efforts to devalue the lives of the handicapped. https://whathathdarwinwrought.org The Theory of Evolution and 20th century Totalitarian Regimes – Paul Gosselin (May – 2021) Excerpt: But as Chirot analyses Nazi and Communist ideologies, he is not shy about pointing out the contribution of the Evolutionary origins myth to these ideologies (1994: 412): “The presence and widespread acceptance of utopian theories of society that demand perfection, and believe that it is possible to obtain it, are also a good predictor of tyranny. Most of the twentieth-century’s tyrannical ideologies, beginning with Europe’s, have been based on popularized science and a misplaced faith that it was possible to engineer the ideal society. But it was not just a matter of idealism carried to excess. The specific content of these theories, their neo-Darwinian belief that history consists of struggles to the death between competing classes or races, was necessary in order to transform them into such deadly instruments of tyranny.” And as we continue reading Chirot gets a bit more specific about how Evolutionism contributes to totalitarian ideologies (1994: 413): “Yet, for all the bloodshed in the past, most of it due to the famine and disease that resulted from wars, there are no cases of deliberate mass slaughter for ideological reasons on the scale of what the twentieth century has witnessed. A neo-Darwinian sense of history as a struggle to the death has spread well beyond those intellectuals who think of themselves as being in the Western scientific tradition. The idea that various categories of people races, classes, ethnicities, religions are the equivalent of species of organisms fighting for survival, and therefore justified in taking the most extreme measures, has become widespread. Thus, even though it adopts the position that it is only reviving an old tradition, the fundamentalist version of Islam, when it achieves power, is a type of modern utopian totalitarianism.” So the key evolutionary contribution to Nazi and Communist ideologies were the concepts of “Fight for Survival” and “Survival of the Fittest”. Writing shortly after World War II Sir Arthur Keith (an evolutionist), underscored an issue about Nazism that many Western elites would prefer left swept under the carpet (1947: 27-28): “The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution… To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy… The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood… Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution.” http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/sc_soc/sc_po/EvolutionandTotalitarianRegimes_PG.htm Atheism’s Body Count * It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world. https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/
bornagain77
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
JVL
Not saying it’s not prestigious just that’s it not the same organisation that Newton and Darwin belonged to.
You are right. My bad. Thanks for the clarification ...martin_r
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: There is in the attempt to smear Dr Tour a bit of no true scientist can be a Christian (= “liar for Jesus”) fallacy-making. Actually, Dr Tour identifies as a Messianic Jew. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tour Interestingly enough the state of Israel considers Messianic Judaism to be a part of evangelical Christianity! I bet that's generated some heated arguments.JVL
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT
Just to be clear . . . The Royal Society of Chemistry was founded in 1980 (after some older organisations amalgamated) but it's a different organisation than the Royal Society. Not saying it's not prestigious just that's it not the same organisation that Newton and Darwin belonged to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society_of_ChemistryJVL
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT
Q, in part the issue is, what do you mean by "gold"? Redefine appropriately and voila by agreed convention the alchemists did make gold. But that is the point, power games with words do not change underlying realities, though they may make us act in ill advised ways. Of course, I here allude to distinct identity, duty to truth, right reason and prudence including warrant. Resemblance to various situations, agit prop pushes and issues today is not coincidental. There is in the attempt to smear Dr Tour a bit of no true scientist can be a Christian (= "liar for Jesus") fallacy-making. The gold in this case is scientist is implicitly redefined to mean atheism advocate, but once that is explicit, it collapses. So, it has to be hidden under doublethink and doubletalk. Hence, yet another case of projection to the despised other as defence from cognitive dissonance. KFkairosfocus
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT
Martin Correction, the back and forth ending at 150 Vividvividbleau
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
Martin .”So hopefully he no longer believes this nonsense….. or am I naive ? :)))))” Is this a rhetorical question? All Seversky does is come on this forum, takes a (oops I mean)defecates, then when pressed to answer tough questions wipes himself , throws the toilet paper in the room, then leaves and defecates on another thread. Check out the Rufo thread and the back and forth regarding BLM at 150 Vividvividbleau
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
At present, there is no answer to the origin of life from scientists but the idea that life could "arise" - somehow - is heavily promoted. Why? It is about establishing a firm atheist worldview among scientists and the public. It is about turning man into an object of worship. That way, the masses will think that nothing made them. That humans are the result of a long process that just happened - by accident - to make them. And that human beings are the greatest. That we can come up with all kinds of ideas to keep the masses confused. What is your identity? Where did you come from? A prebiotic soup? And why do you believe that? Instead, let's look at Intelligent Design. An Intelligence made you, not nothing. Your identity is tied to this Intelligence. From the Christian perspective, this Intelligence is God. Your identity is a creation of God. Not nothing. At present, all science has is that life poofed into existence. With God, His work is seen all around us. We don't have to be Christians to see that. Those plants and animals are designed. The fiction is they only look designed. They are not really designed. Critics say Intelligent Design is a science stopper. On the contrary, as more evidence of design is found in living things, man's knowledge increases. Unguided evolution is not the correct answer. But if the masses pick God as the designer then the spread of atheism is in trouble. THAT is the primary issue here. THAT will remain the primary issue here. With atheism, man chooses himself while rejecting God. Man takes the place of God. Before Darwin's book, great scientists openly acknowledge God while doing their work. And God will lead us into all truth. John 16:13 "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."relatd
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
Qeurius, I looked at the huffpost link, ... $5,000,000 OoL grant for Benner. That explains a lot ...martin_r
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
AnimatedDust another priceless moment: "Professor" Farina claims, that Dr. Tour is not qualified enough to talk about OoL-research, because he is ONLY a synthetic chemist .. And then Farina calls in those 3 experts ... all synthetic chemists :))))))) https://youtu.be/ZtitTE2BavU?t=1martin_r
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
Querius, the fake gold (lead iodide) video... OoL-researchers wish they could produce such a fake life :))))martin_r
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Querius,
Of course they make such claims! This is exactly what the alchemists of old did, claiming they were ever-so-close to creating gold from lead!
Considering OoL-research, there is one very important difference ... these OoL-researchers are perfectly aware of what they have to replicate ... Alchemists of gold were just very naive guys with very limited/close to zero knowledge.martin_r
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
Otangelo, I apologize … You are right …. This post wasn’t about Tour ….martin_r
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
MR re Ball Milling: Priceless moment. Bet he would love to have that one back. :)AnimatedDust
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
Martin_r @3, Excellent points all! Here are some comments regarding your observations . . .
this series is simply amazing. Not only is Dr. Tour a top scientist (in 2020 he became a member of Royal Society – the oldest scientific organization in the world) but he is also an excellent presenter. I especially like his sarcasm.
Dr. Tour is brilliant. I think his presentations are improving. The big challenge is how not to be too incisive when confronted by complete baloney! Self-proclaimed “professor,” Dave Farina, is actually impressively adept at rhetoric—as skilled as any trial lawyer trying to sway a jury when the facts of the case are against him, or as persuasive as a used-car salesman selling a piece of junk to a customer. They are very, very good at what they do!
Most people don’t appreciate what he is doing for us.
Agreed! Did you see the techniques “Professor Dave” is employing? They include • Appealing to authority • Appealing to consensus • Manufacturing non-stop ad hominem attacks in his word choices, including accusing Dr. Tour of scientific fraud! • Projecting false motives onto Dr. Tour • Employing strawman arguments by putting words into Dr. Tour’s mouth—things he never said. • Spouting an unrelenting stream of mockery and hyper-skepticism along with eye-rolls and other body language. If you analyze what “Professor Dave” is actually saying, you’ll also appreciate his skill at avoiding anything scientifically substantive. He even claims that autocatalysis is a sort of chemical perpetual motion machine in its ability to manufacture chemically pure, homochiral, etc. reagents. Wow! “Professor Dave” falsely accuses Dr. Tour of employing a “God of the gaps” argument when he himself resorts to TWO gods of the gaps who are named MUSTA and MIGHTA. These two gods are frequently invoked for the purposes of bridging chasms of scientific ignorance in both Origin of Life and Darwinism.
In the most recent video, he is addressing OoL-researcher Steve Benner … This Benner, such an arrogant person … and a liar …
Dr. Benner looked very uncomfortable during the segments displayed in Dr. Tour’s presentation. I’d say he’s the one who’s ideologically poisoned along with “Professor Dave” rather than Dr. Tour, who maintains a separation between his scientific and academic work with his deep love and faith in God. Here’s some more about Dr. Brenner and how he sells Origin-of-Life jewelry (!) to help fund his research along with the Templeton prize and NASA grants: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/steve-benner-origins-of-life-funds-origins-of-life_b_5a53ea6ce4b0ee59d41c0d47
What is shocking, all these OoL-researchers making an impression that they are close to creating life in lab … the fact is, they haven’t made any progress at all … in their whole career !!!! … they virtually have NOTHING … they only wasted other people money … but their self-confidence is really shocking … it is unbelievable … I really don’t understand how can anyone still fund these people … they are totally useless …
Of course they make such claims! This is exactly what the alchemists of old did, claiming they were ever-so-close to creating gold from lead! Here’s an amazing modern-day version of what alchemists were trying to do: Turning lead into gold (lead iodide) ~2 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4COWrI0WsQ Some of them sacrifice their scientific integrity with science-fantasy claims for the purpose of acquiring millions in additional funding and achieving celebrity status. Who would fund anyone on Origin-of-Life research if they start out by admitting that “we’re totally clueless”?
Of course, one reason why they are useless is the fact, that they think that life emerged in some chemical pond. This is the main reason for their failure. Another reason is the self-deception …
It is really shocking, that these well educated people seriously think, that they can create the most advanced self-replicating technology on earth by heating/cooling/shaking flasks … it is like in some mental hospital … they seriously seem to believe in 19th century spontaneous generation theory.
But it’s just GOTTA work because it MUSTA happened!
(or, they just trying to trick investors to get more funding … this is easy money … I think I will become a OoL-research too … )
Sure, but let me caution you that there’s FAR too much competition for the money to chase after it. If you’re willing to sell your soul, don’t do it just for a bowl of lentil stew, a toaster oven, or even a $5 million dollar grant! ;-) -QQuerius
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Didn't know that my video was about J.Tour.....Otangelo
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
AnimatedDust
Seversky, Tour is widely published in the field. Your willful ignorance is showing.
HOUSTON – (June 24, 2020) – Rice University chemist James Tour has won a Royal Society of Chemistry Centenary Prize. The award, given annually to up to three scientists from outside Great Britain, recognizes researchers for their contributions to the chemical sciences industry or education and for successful collaborations. Tour was named for innovations in materials chemistry with applications in medicine and nanotechnology. https://www.tmc.edu/news/2020/06/rice-university-chemist-james-tour-scores-prestigious-centenary-prize/ Royal Society (wiki)
The Royal Society was founded in 1660 to bring together leading scientific minds of the day, and became an international network for practical and philosophical investigation of the physical world. Today, it's the world's oldest national scientific academy.
martin_r
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
AnimatedDust
Frustrating that Benner uses the word miracle instead of intelligent agency,
Yes, through the years, I debated lots of atheists, and it seems to be some kind of tactic. To make you look more stupid or something. In fact, Darwinists believe in miracles :))))))) But I agree with you. It is frustrating that a scientist like Benner (from Harvard) uses these words... I would expect it from Seversky, but not from a Harvard professor ... it is a shame ... Of course, no miracles are needed. Only very advanced engineering. It is like saying, that a DNA printer is some miraculous alien machine :))))
DNA printing is the essential component in synthetic biology, allowing scientists to acquire custom oligos (short, single-stranded DNA sequences) to develop PCR diagnostics (primers and probes), gene synthesis and editing technologies, and many other molecular biology and genomics applications.
martin_r
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
AnimatedDust
Seversky, Tour is widely published in the field. Your willful ignorance is showing.
In part 05 there was a very funny moment. "Professor" Farina accused Tour that he (Tour) never heard of Ball Milling ... (Some geological process) It turned out, that Tour published 8 papers in 2022 alone mentioning Ball Milling :))))))) Here is the moment: https://youtu.be/t5PfBzQUjW8?t=991martin_r
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Animated Dust
But, Dave is inadvertently giving Tour much more exposure by ridiculing him, which I suppose is a good thing.
Yes, I think this is one of the reasons why Tour shot 10+ hours of lectures. And the 3-experts rebuttal. Because of Farina's 2M you tube followers. It was a good move. I am very happy that there is Dave Farina. Not every youtuber interested in OoL-research has 2M followers. So we should be thankful for "professor" Farina. Of course, Tour won't convince any of Farina's followers, but that is alright. Also, Tour's videos look very professional, creative, funny .... must be very expensive to produce it this way ... My guess is, that to produce a 20 mins video takes about week ... Also, it is a good thing that Tour keeps it only 20 minutes per video. You have to keep people focused.martin_r
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
Seversky, Tour is widely published in the field. Your willful ignorance is showing. He is on YouTube to more likely reach dolts like you. Oh wait, you don’t even watch YouTube. You just show up here and talk out of your rear end.AnimatedDust
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply