You said, “ I don’t see any value in discussing “credentials” or certification. It’s not your acceptance that I seek either. Seeking to discuss me the person rather than the arguments and views that I espouse is all that should matter here.” Therefore, as I said, I employed that standard and used a video, without regard for credentials, to debunk yours.
2 Likes
Right and I stand by that. But if one does attach high significance to credentials (as you and others do) then surely Tour trounces “Dave” yes? by your own emphasis of credentials Dave can be dismissed, yes?
I am pointing out how the oft seen demand for credentials was readily sidelined when I presented James Tour.
Of course Tour doesn’t (and nor do I) argue that his credentials prove him right, he has pretty involved scientific justifications for his position which is that abiogenesis is a fantasy, a fairytale.
It’s obvious that you’ve never read any of the numerous posts here dealing with both prebiotic chemistry and James Tour, otherwise you would have learned quickly that his objections are utterly specious, and that he’s a charlatan. I’ll now cover in detail why he’s a charlatan.
First of all, thanks to the fact that I actually studied organic chemistry, I know that there’s a world of difference between synthetic chemistry and prebiotic chemistry. Modern synthetic chemistry frequently deals with chemical reactions that involve elevated temperatures and pressures, the use of exotic catalysts such as those based upon palladium, rhodium or in one or two cases, even iridium, powerful reagents such as strong oxidising or reducing agents, superacids, or exotic intermediate compounds involving such weirdness as 11-membered heterocyclic rings.
On the other hand, prebiotic chemistry deals with reactions that take place at room temperature (or temperatures not varying wildly therefrom), atmospheric pressure, and involving mild reagents that are known to be present in abundance throughout the observable universe - indeed, recent additions to my collection of peer reviewed scientific papers from the prebiotic chemistry literature, include one announcing the discovery of the amino acid tryptophan in interstellar gas clouds.
So on that basis alone, I know Tour is a charlatan, one who never dares to present his specious pseudo-objections to an audience containing tenured prebiotic chemistry researchers such as Jack Szostak or John D. Sutherland, who would rip him a new one in nanoseconds after he had opened his mouth. Indeed, the last time a mythology fanboy tried to exhort me to pay attention to Tour’s nonsense, I replied with this post, covering relevant salient facts about Tour, such as the fact that he’s a member of the Duplicity Institute, a well known creationist organisation devoted to peddling lies about science and vacuous apologetics to dangle before the gullible and uneducated. You might want to ask why he’s decided to become a member thereof, though my view is that he decided that apologetics was more lucrative than hard science.
As for the matter of prebiotic chemistry, over 100,000 peer reviewed scientific papers document in exquisite detail, the laboratory experiments establishing that every chemical reaction implicated in the origin of life works. Which isn’t surprising, because those of us who paid attention in class learned quickly that life IS chemistry writ large - millions of chemical reactions are taking place in your body right now, and if some of those reactions stop, you die.
The existence of poisons, and well-defined chemical mechanisms via which they exert their influence, and the existence of the modern pharmaceutical industry, which treats diseases with chemical molecules successfully, should be telling you something important here, even before I start pointing to any of the aforementioned peer reviewed scientific papers from the prebiotic chemistry literature.
Oh wait, I referenced no less than eighty two of those papers when I launched this thread on the subject of prebiotic chemistry research and its implications for the origin of life. Even that isn’t the sum total of my collection, which, despite being woefully small from the standpoint of professional researchers in the field, still numbers four hundred and sixty two papers that I’ve studied over the past 14 years, all documenting experimental verification of chemical reactions that Tour blithely asserts do not exist.
Indeed, prebiotic chemists have alighted upon chemical reactions that were not suspected to exist just two decades ago, and verified experimentally in the laboratory that they work. John Sutherland has displayed particular ingenuity in this field, but he’s not alone with respect to making contributions of this sort to the literature.
Oh, by the way, in case you never learned this, prebiotic chemists have, in some cases, moved on to experiments with synthetic model protocells, experiments that Tour is woefully ignorant of. I’ve already provided enough citations from the relevant literature to back up my statements, which can be tracked down by anyone exerting a minimal level of diligence with the forum search function, so don’t even think of trying to accuse me of lacking rigour in this respect.
With respect to those experiments with synthetic model protocells, the peer reviewed journal Nature alone has three entire collections thereof, that the diligent can enjoy perusing via these links:
Quite simply, Tour is a liar and a pedlar of repeatedly destroyed creationist propaganda, who wouldn’t dare peddle his wares before an audience containing people such as Sutherland, Szostak, Ferris, Wächtershäuser, Orgel or Joyce. Who would not so much demolish his canards, but reduce them to their constituent quarks.
Now would you like to address the data contained in those papers I’ve cited, which destroy Tour’s duplicitous ex recto assertions wholesale, or are you going to continue pretending that a known creationist liar knows more about chemistry than actual tenured researchers in the field?
4 Likes
Harsh words indeed for someone who doesn’t share your beliefs. Tour openly discussed and debated with Lee Cronin and this discussion in freely available online. Lee Cronin (who disagrees with Tour about OOL just to be clear) is also critical of Szostak:
So Lee Cronin is does not share your optimism of either of the two scientists you cited. So we have James Tour and Lee Cronin who disagree about the viability of OOL and Lee Cronin calling out Sutherland ad Szostak for their over simplification of the real problem.
Read for yourself
Well, where as I remember asking you if you had credentials, I do not remember saying that I attach high significance to them. Perhaps you are just reading into it according to your biases.
3 Likes
Here’s more from Lee Cronin on Sutherland:
Just to be very very clear - Lee Cronin is an atheist.
1 Like
To summarize we have an atheist chemist and a theist chemist BOTH stating unequivocally that OOL problems are nowhere near being solved, nowhere close to a solution.
So what you gonna do now @Calilasseia ? who is right Cronin or Szostak/Sutherland?
1 Like
Oh look, the in tray is full again …
I don’t have “beliefs”. When I have evidence to support relevant postulates, belief is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.
Who? Should I know this person?
And on what basis does he posture as being in a position to criticise a chemist who is also a Nobel Laureate? And if this individual’s assertions are correct, why did the peer reviewers at Nature not alight upon this?
Already dealt with this. Synthetic chemists, as I’ve already told you, deal with completely different chemical reactions to those studied by prebiotic chemists. As a consequence, I dispute strongly the assertion that they know more than actual prebiotic chemists on this matter. Oh, and did you even acknowledge the existence of those scientific papers on the topic that I mentioned, let alone try to read them?
This is apologetic bullshit from start to finish. The existence of relevant chemical reactions, and the intellectual effort required to discover them, are two completely separate things. This is nothing more than a rehash of Canard #8 from my grand creationist canard list.
Do learn the elementary concepts applicable here.
Oh, and if you think anything peddled on Tour’s website is trustworthy, this speaks volumes about your beliefs.
Meanwhile, let’s deal with this piece of garbage:
Oh wait, phosphate minerals are present on the Earth in abundance. The apatite group minerals alone are common enough to be mined for fertiliser, and specimens of apatite were brought back from the moon by the Apollo astronauts…
Here’s a nice little list of known phosphate minerals:
Triphylite
Monazite
Hinsdalite
Pyromorphite
Erythrite
Amblygonite
Lazulite
Wavelite
Turquoise
Autunite
Phosphoryllite
Struvite
Xenotime
Apatite Group: [1] Hydroxylapatite, [2] Fluorapatite, [3] Chlorapatite
Mitridatite Group: [1] Arseniosiderite-Mitridatite series, [2] Arsenosiderite-Robertsite series
Of the above, pyromorphite is sometimes sufficiently abundant to be mined as an ore of lead. Amblygonite is found in pegmatite deposits, which again are abundant, and mined for quartz and feldspars.
Likewise, UV light reaches the Earth from the Sun in quantity. Before the Great Oxygenation Event, and the emergence of the ozone layer, UV light would have reached the Earth’s surface in even greater quantity than at present.
Do you ever bother checking real scientific facts before posting apologetics?
1 Like
You believe abiogenesis is plausible yet all we see in the natural world is biogenesis, so right there you have a belief!
Yes, I think you should.
Leroy "Lee " Cronin FRSE FRSC (born 1 June 1973)[1] is the Regius Chair of Chemistry in the School of Chemistry at the University of Glasgow.[2][3][4] He was elected to the Fellowship of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Royal Society of Chemistry, and appointed to the Regius Chair of Chemistry in 2013. He was previously the Gardiner Chair, appointed April 2009.
Read his letter, he stated his objections clearly. Also FYI being a Nobel laureate does not make one inerrant.
So says you, Cronin thinks otherwise, so we have a difference of opinion here.
But Cronin is an atheist, so on what basis do you label him “apologist”? Cronin is stating (correctly) that the outcome obtained by Sutherland had several inputs one being an intellectual effort and he says (correctly if we assume atheism) that that intellectual component would not have been present in a prebiotic world.
If want to present schoolboy chemistry as an argument then I suggest you reach out to Prof. Cronin and correct him and see how he responds?
1 Like
Do you really believe that when a chemist receives the Nobel prize, then they become inerrant? that nobody has a right to question what they say? Cronin doesn’t care about his qualifications he cares only abut the science.
1 Like
Since you are in Britain (I no longer am) then it is a bit surprising that as someone whi claims to know about chemistry that you’ve never heard of Cronin:
Prof Cronin is among the most admired figures in British chemistry. He has been at Glasgow since 2002 and became regius professor at the age of only 39.
According to the website for the Cronin Group of researchers, Prof Cronin leads one of the largest multidisciplinary, chemistry-based teams in the [world](World News | The Herald), having raised over $35 million (£29.5m) in grants and with current income of $15m. He is particularly well known for his work in areas such as assembling artificial life and the construction of chemical computers.
Prof Cronin has given over 300 international talks and authored more than 350 peer-reviewed papers. His recent work has been published in Nature, Science and PNAS.
1 Like
I leave “inerrancy” to mythology fanboys.
I simply recognise that someone who obtained a Nobel Prize in a relevant discipline, is more likely to be a reliable source of data than a random pedlar of apologetics on the Internet. Or did this elementary concept fly past you, while posting your knee-jerk apologetic garbage?
Everyone has a right to question honestly assertions in the public domain. The operative word here being honestly. As opposed to fabricating ex recto apologetic lies.
Really? So why did he not realise that phosphate minerals are present in abundance? And would have been similarly abundant on the early Earth?
Meanwhile …
So why have I never heard of his work?
Oh wait, that might be because his work is in an esoteric branch of organic chemistry, that I have had no reason to study. He specialises in polyoxometalate nanostructures, which have no bearing on prebiotic chemistry. Prebiotic chemistry does NOT involve such exotica as molybdenum carbonyls, which is the focus of one of his Nature papers.
Which leads me to ask on what grounds he’s qualified to dismiss Szostak or Sutherland. Has he even read their papers, as I have?
As I’ve told you repeatedly above, synthetic chemists deal with completely different chemical reactions to those studied by prebiotic chemists. When are you going to learn this lesson, and stop posting tiresome and predictable apologetic lies?
1 Like
Why not tell him then, send him an email and share is reply here? You won’t because you’ve misunderstood or misinterpreted what he wrote.
You should get out more, perhaps get out of your comfort zone more often.
On the grounds that they apparently do not appreciate the complexity of the issues in the way Cronin does.
Yet as Cronin points out:
“I think the synthetic chemist can be the most skeptical because we know what molecules do and do not do in an abiological environment”
If you read his paper rather than simply dismissing it in the cavalier manner that you have, you’d have read that part.
Once again, Cronin is an atheist so what justifies referring to his remarks as “apologetic lies”?
Quickly dealing with this manifest bullshit …
When over 100,000 peer reviewed scientific papers document in exquisite detail, laboratory experiments establishing that every chemical reaction implicated in the origin of life WORKS, we’re not dealing with “belief”. Stop fucking lying.
Oh, and apparently it didn’t occur to you, that the reason abiogenesis isn’t observed in the modern world, is because the molecules in question would be snapped up as nutrients by currently existing living organisms before they had a chance to engage in the requisite reactions
Once again, stop playing dishonest apologetics with science.
2 Likes
Poppycock.
If you think an actual tenured researcher in prebiotic chemistry “doesn’t appreciate the complexity of the issues”, then either you’re stupid or mendacious.
And once again, I’ve repeatedly told you that synthetic chemists DEAL WITH TOTALLY DIFFERENT CLASSES OF CHEMICAL REACTIONS. When are you going to learn this elementary fact?
Work on exotic molybdenum carbonyls has NO RELEVANCE to prebiotic chemistry.
Stop lying. I didn’t “dismiss it in a cavalier manner”, I provided a cogent objection to that assertion, namely, that he deals in totally different classes of chemical reaction, which are IRRELEVANT to prebiotic chemistry.
1 Like
But counting the number of papers published isn’t the way we evaluate scientific hypotheses. It is by testing falsifiable claims.
Nobody has created a cell nobody has shown life emerge from non-life. The challenges are immense according to two reputable chemists Cronin and Tour. These are credible individuals, just because they rock your cozy little make-believe world of magic is no reason to throw your toys out of the pram.
There are thousands of papers published on super strings but there isn’t a theory, there is nothing more that speculation, Penrose and other theoretical physicists dismiss super strings as not a theory, but if we did things your way we’d laugh at Penrose and reject him just because the subject attracts lots of attention and there are lots of papers published.
Science is not a democracy, claims get decided by being tested not by whether they are fashionable or popular, it is incredible that you claim to be scientifically competent when you spout such absurdities.
1 Like
You overlooked this.
1 Like
And it’s dishonest apologetics time from our mythology fanboy again …
Oh you mean “testing falsifiable claims” by conducting relevant experiments, perchance?, Such as the experiments documented in those papers I keep referring you to? Which you’ve obviously never read, and Dismiss In Cavalier Fashion™ ???
Your combination of hypocrisy and chutzpah truly is a sordid spectacle.
I’ve already, repeatedly told you, that the relevant research has now moved on to synthetic model protocells. indeed, I pointed you, via relevant links, to three collections of papers on this subject from the journal Nature alone. Which you obviously ignored, and Dismissed In Cavalier Fashion™ .
Those synthetic model protocells in the experiments in question, exhibit metabolism, self-replication and repair. That’s three features of living cells they’ve successfully replicated. Going to continue to Dismiss This In Cavalier Fashion™ ???
Correction, one chemist who isn’t working in the requisite field, and is working on reactions totally unconnected with prebiotic chemistry, and a proven liar for creationist doctrine.
Tour isn’t “reputable” because he’s a known creationist liar. Genuinely reputable people don’t become apologetic shills for the Duplicity Institute.
Cronin’s objections are specious for the reasons I’ve already cited - he isn’t working in the field, and has Dismissed In Cavalier Fashion™ the relevant experimental work, which I doubt he’s even read.
And it’s projection time from a mythology fanboy again. Where’s that evidence for a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology?
Yawn. An infantile response to the facts I keep presenting, and which you continue to Dismiss In Cavalier Fashion™ .
First of all, what takes place in cosmological physics has no relevance to prebiotic chemistry.
Second, one of the results arising from string theory, is Steinhardt & Turok’s braneworld cosmology, which includes a testable prediction that scientists are working to test.
So why do numerous other physicists continue to treat string theory as a reasonable idea to pursue? Do you think they’re doing it just for the shits and giggles?
Oh look, it’s hypocrisy and chuztpah time again.
You really are scraping the bottom of the apologetic barrel here, aren’t you?
Oh wait, how many of the scientific papers I’ve presented here, documenting the very experimental tests you bleat about, are you continuing to Dismiss In Cavalier Fashion™ ?
Projection, much?
Oh wait, how many of Szostak’s papers have you read? None.
How many of Sutherland’s papers have you read? None.
But you think it’s acceptable to Dismiss Them In Cavalier Fashion™ ,because you think you’ve found two people who can be pressed into service to support your duplicitous ex recto apologetics.
You really are a sleazy and underhand little specimen.
3 Likes
What you call “prebiotic chemistry” does not actually exist, you do grasp that fact don’t you? These labels are just human terms, terms invented by humans to help them organize and structure knowledge.
Organic chemistry and inorganic chemistry do not exist, we invented these terms, chemistry is chemistry is chemistry, atoms are atoms differing only in their nuclei and electron shells.
The reason I am saying this is that you are wrong to argue that someone who’s an expert in discipline X disagreeing with an expert in discipline Y on an aspect of Y, can be relevant.
These broad terms “prebiotic” and so on are helpful as a way to structure and organize our knowledge but that does not mean that specializing in one area disqualifies someone from pointing out errors made by a person in a different area.
So some of your contrived argumentation above is little more than the old argument from authority, a well known fallacy yet something you and many anti-theists here rely on.
Your attitude is terrible, the antithesis of real science which should strive to evaluate claims not on the basis of someone’s qualifications or areas of specialty but on the basis of how well the claim matches the real world.
All you are doing here is deciding that some claim is the province ONLY of some domain, and that questioning that claim is not allowed unless the skeptic is qualified in that domain.
Who are you to say that this or that question about the achievability of some complex reaction can only be decided by those who already presume that its achievable?
Only those who subscribe to abiogenesis can comment upon abiogenesis? This is what I say all the time, you are no different to the dogmatics who persecuted Galileo, you think your scientifically educated? I disagree, you are indoctrinated plain and simple and do all that you can to thwart open reasoned discourse.
You said you’ve never heard of Lee Cronin, well guess what? he’s never heard of you.