Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Discussion > Science, Inventions & Space
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Science, Inventions & Space Discuss James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained at the General Discussion; James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained "From Science Uprising, synthetic organic chemist James Tour from Rice ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2019, 09:39 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,108
Thanks: 10,495
Thanked 6,584 Times in 4,476 Posts
Default James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained

James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained
"From Science Uprising, synthetic organic chemist James Tour from Rice University
discusses the serious challenges faced by current origin of life research."


OH MAN this is Devastating.
must watch for anyone who thinks Chemicals+Time =Life
or that scientist are "close" to making life ...
or that scientist are "close" to knowing how to make life in the lab.


this is part of a series of videos with scientist who do a hard critique of the evolutionary science.
https://scienceuprising.com
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 08-21-2019, 06:53 AM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Posts: 12,832
Thanks: 10,871
Thanked 9,046 Times in 5,629 Posts
Default Re: James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained
"From Science Uprising, synthetic organic chemist James Tour from Rice University
discusses the serious challenges faced by current origin of life research."


OH MAN this is Devastating.
must watch for anyone who thinks Chemicals+Time =Life
or that scientist are "close" to making life ...
or that scientist are "close" to knowing how to make life in the lab.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y

this is part of a series of videos with scientist who do a hard critique of the evolutionary science.
https://scienceuprising.com
I haven't watched the video, but last night around 10:00 I had just finished a book on this very subject. By Dan Brown (The DaVinci Code) a novel called Origins.

You may want to read it, if you haven't already. As with Dan Brown's other books, it sets forth a theory, proves it in it's own manner, and leaves you to think about it.

I consider myself agnostic, I do not know if a 'God' as depicted exists or not, it has not been satisfactorily proven to me. Do not take that as anything than what it is, I know you are a man of religion, and I'm fine with that, or for anyone who draws comfort from their beliefs that harms no other.

To discount what has been proven scientifically for decades as pish, is what many would call normalcy bias, hence why I do not discount the possibility of their being a God.

It works both ways, with no disrespect from either side.
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you don't laugh at yourself, a whole bunch of people will volunteer to do it for you
I never lose. I either win, or I learn....
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 08-21-2019, 07:52 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,210
Thanks: 9,801
Thanked 8,104 Times in 4,813 Posts
Default Re: James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained

I'm not watching a 22 minute video to see if I can figure out your point. How about a short summary?

Having said that, if you follow any theory of the origin of life (or the universe) back to the starting point, sooner or later you reach a point where you can go no further, and you still don't have the answer.

Sometimes the theories coincide. I don't see why God couldn't have created the universe by blowing up an infinitely small collection of mass? Works as well as any other theory.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jimbo For This Useful Post:
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 08-21-2019, 08:20 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,108
Thanks: 10,495
Thanked 6,584 Times in 4,476 Posts
Default Re: James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
I'm not watching a 22 minute video to see if I can figure out your point. How about a short summary?
OK but I have to say, It's well WORTH IT if you're at all interested in the subject of "origin of life research". specifically the idea of raw chemicals becoming alive via a primordial soup spontaneously and then reproducing... etc.

But the shortest summary is what i quoted and said in the 1st post
""From Science Uprising, synthetic organic chemist James Tour from Rice University
discusses the serious challenges faced by current origin of life research."

OH MAN this is Devastating.
must watch for anyone who thinks Chemicals+Time = Life
or that scientist are "close" to making life ...
or that scientist are "close" to knowing how to make life in the lab."
But to add to that, in the video this professor of Chemistry answers several questions put to him:
• Are you qualified to speak on origin of life issues?
• Do you think education on origin of life is accurate? (@3:06)
• How widespread is the misunderstanding over the origin of life? (@5:19)
• With large amounts of time isn't anything possible, including the chance origin of the 1st life? (@7:25)
• What are the challenges with the chemical building blocks of life? (@13:10)
• How Complex is a "simple" cell? (@18:22)
• What about the probability arguments for the origin of life? (@20:38)

Early on in one of the questions part of his reply is something along the line of,
"...NONE of the Chemist he speaks to , when he presents the problems of the origin of life from chemicals, disagree with him. NONE. The only folks he knows of who disagree are biologist, who have never made anything chemically themselves..."

At each question point he drives home the various scientific problems and each problem compounds the level of difficulty for the possibility of accidental spontaneous appearance of life from chemicals and any type of primordial soup.

But here's the thing about this summary. if you don't listen to the Professors presentation , you might assume you think you know what he's got to say.
But it's like the difference in me saying
"The lawyer says the man is Guilty".
verses hearing the evidence yourself about bloody shoe prints, the neighbors testimony, the weapon found in the man's home with the victims blood, the emailed death threats the day before, the man's clothes covered with the victims blood, the video tape of the murder and the sign confession that aligns with all the evidence.

If your response to my summary is something like well "that's his opinion" or "he's biased " then you haven't really engaged with what he's saying.
An honest reply should rebut the evidence presented not just deny the conclusion. that's science right?

But, hey, I'd love to get your take on it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
Having said that, if you follow any theory of the origin of life (or the universe) back to the starting point, sooner or later you reach a point where you can go no further, and you still don't have the answer.
And it's definitely not what some scientist would have people believe.
some assert that the universe came from "NOTHING" somehow. No final answer true but they are supposedly "sure" of that much.
But the question is does the preponderance of the evidence and logic really lead to that conclusion?
The honest answer is no.

you do reach a point where you can go no further for sure but
you could have an answer or at least answers that definitely lean in one direction or another.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
Sometimes the theories coincide. I don't see why God couldn't have created the universe by blowing up an infinitely small collection of mass? Works as well as any other theory.
And sometimes theories are, in fact, just false. And don't work at all after serious examination.
And some theories align far better with the available evidence and knowledge than others.
Whether or not people are really open to go where the evidence points is another question.

A causal synthesis sounds nice but is it really what we'd conclude after looking at the evidence?
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

Last edited by mr wonder; 08-21-2019 at 08:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 08-21-2019, 08:54 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,108
Thanks: 10,495
Thanked 6,584 Times in 4,476 Posts
Default Re: James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
I haven't watched the video, but last night around 10:00 I had just finished a book on this very subject. By Dan Brown (The DaVinci Code) a novel called Origins.

You may want to read it, if you haven't already. As with Dan Brown's other books, it sets forth a theory, proves it in it's own manner, and leaves you to think about it.

I consider myself agnostic, I do not know if a 'God' as depicted exists or not, it has not been satisfactorily proven to me. Do not take that as anything than what it is, I know you are a man of religion, and I'm fine with that, or for anyone who draws comfort from their beliefs that harms no other.

To discount what has been proven scientifically for decades as pish, is what many would call normalcy bias, hence why I do not discount the possibility of their being a God.

It works both ways, with no disrespect from either side.

hmmm, ok, but um, Did i mention God?

But sure, I'd agree, that to "discount what has been proven scientifically for decades as pish, is what many would call normalcy bias,"
Some might call it that. And in some cases that might be true.
But should folks assume that without even giving a 10 minute check? What do we call that?
However, if the evidence shows an old theory wrong then they should just call it science doing what science does.
But if people don't accept or acknowledge what the new evidence shows and hold on to old disproven theories what do we call those people?

just saying.
Am i off base here?

And concerning Dan Brown, He's entertaining, but I've found if we research beyond what he presents in his books into real history we find that his "proofs" are weak and/or often, long shown to be, fables or false outright for dramatic sake. And he leaves out historical counter "proofs" which ultimately takes the legs out from under what he asserts. It's often a fun ride but like some science fiction that goes far beyond hard science possibilities into science fantasy, Brown seems to goes from historical fiction into historical fantasy. I think to the disservice of some readers who'd simply take the wrong parts of his books as historical accurate or historical possible.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 08-22-2019, 07:10 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,420
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,302 Times in 1,836 Posts
Default Re: James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained
The Theory of Abiogenesis has existed in science for about 100 years and there are several hypothesis that have developed over time as to how this could occur. The most recent hypothesis has the most support because it's backed by a sound mathematical formula.

Quote:
The newest addition to this mix of theories has been clearly articulated by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the USA (though a series of individuals have contributed over the years). The contention from supporters of this idea is that life evolved out of necessity, following the laws of nature, rather than through any accident or freak occurrence. In a number of papers, physicists have argued that the occurrence of life is a matter of inevitability, and they have a sound formula to support their claims.

The new(ish) models that physicists have come up with are formulated on previously established theories in physics, and they conclude that matter will generally develop into systems that, when “driven by an external source of energy” and “surrounded by a heat bath,” become increasingly efficient at dissipating energy. Studies have shown that populations of random atoms, when exposed to energy, will shuffle and organise themselves to dissipate energy more efficiently. It is suggested that this re-modelling would eventually lead to life.

So, this new theory may be viewed as an addition to the simple metabolism and reaction theory above, but with energy, such as is provided by the sun, as the catalyst
https://futurism.com/abiogenesis-7-s...fe-one-new-one
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ShivaTD For This Useful Post:
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 08-22-2019, 09:42 AM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Posts: 12,832
Thanks: 10,871
Thanked 9,046 Times in 5,629 Posts
Default Re: James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
hmmm, ok, but um, Did i mention God?

But sure, I'd agree, that to "discount what has been proven scientifically for decades as pish, is what many would call normalcy bias,"
Some might call it that. And in some cases that might be true.
But should folks assume that without even giving a 10 minute check? What do we call that?
However, if the evidence shows an old theory wrong then they should just call it science doing what science does.
But if people don't accept or acknowledge what the new evidence shows and hold on to old disproven theories what do we call those people?

just saying.
Am i off base here?

And concerning Dan Brown, He's entertaining, but I've found if we research beyond what he presents in his books into real history we find that his "proofs" are weak and/or often, long shown to be, fables or false outright for dramatic sake. And he leaves out historical counter "proofs" which ultimately takes the legs out from under what he asserts. It's often a fun ride but like some science fiction that goes far beyond hard science possibilities into science fantasy, Brown seems to goes from historical fiction into historical fantasy. I think to the disservice of some readers who'd simply take the wrong parts of his books as historical accurate or historical possible.
I am unable to watch videos at work, due to 'standards', ie taking 10 minutes for it. Bad impressions for the staff.

When science, or other means definitively show something other than what was previously accepted, of course one will take that into consideration. Unfortunately, there are many closed minds on that subject, especially in the area I currently live in.

I believe you've mis-categorized my comment on Brown. He gives food for thought, and as happens with me with a great deal of what I read, it opens doorways for ME to further examine a subject. I accept very little as absolute even with my own verification. Life and it's surrounding parts are not stasis, therefore one's own beliefs and understanding cannot be stasis. I just found it interesting that you brought up the subject, just as I finished reading a novel on the same subject.
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you don't laugh at yourself, a whole bunch of people will volunteer to do it for you
I never lose. I either win, or I learn....
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 08-22-2019, 10:03 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,108
Thanks: 10,495
Thanked 6,584 Times in 4,476 Posts
Default Re: James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
The Theory of Abiogenesis has existed in science for about 100 years
thanks for replying with some info.
did you watch the video?

But to your points
"The Theory of Abiogenesis has existed in science for about 100 years"
Yes you're right, it has, and one hundred years ago scientist knew very little about how cells worked and had know clue about DNA.
the 100 year old theory breaks under the new weight of complexity of what it's expected to produce.
Even the discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, realized that the DNA and RNA code, the coding system and code reading processes, and the inter-cellular machines that implement the code, were not something that could have arisen spontaneously on earth.
However he wasn't prepared to allow for the idea of a Singular Intelligent Code Writer in the room either, So he proposed that Aliens seeded the earth with the 1st life. Link link
Crick A committed atheist, used the "anything but God" theory of science. A retreat to a "scientific theory" about Unseen Ancient Aliens. (his normalcy bias? i think so.)

So Shiva, 100 years from now will people claim the age of that scientifically unsupported theory as good reason NOT to seriously consider current evidence?

Also, since DNA was discovered the scientific discoveries since 1950 to toady about DNA, RNA, the code, proteins, enzymes etc have just increased in compounded complexity making the possibility of chemical origin of life even LESS likely than it seemed in Crick days.

the Professor in the video i posted outlines some of the details.

Quote:
...and there are several hypothesis that have developed over time as to how this could occur. The most recent hypothesis has the most support because it's backed by a sound mathematical formula.

https://futurism.com/abiogenesis-7-s...fe-one-new-one
you quote:
"life evolved out of necessity, following the laws of nature, rather than through any accident or freak occurrence. In a number of papers, physicists have argued that the occurrence of life is a matter of inevitability, and they have a sound formula to support their claims."
"a sound formula"?
So they've done experiments to see that molecules and chemicals "following the laws of nature" to create life?
No, they haven't.
the professor in the video and many other chemist have. they've "following the laws of nature" and seen what it really does on molecular and chemical level.
And He explains why the laws of nature mitigate AGAINST spontaneous generation of life.

one of the items he mentions is the fact that carbohydrates, (necessary for life) do not form naturally
and IF they did they need a cell working to keep them in a useful form,
if not they'd deteriorate into a useless form.
this is what happens in nature.
You'd have to watch the video to see if If I've explained it correctly.
But bottom line,
the chemist says it's not happening, to many complex parts to be built and need to be working at the same time to even maintain a living fungus.

Plus thousands of chicken and egg problems, that chemical reactions are not built to create or overcome.

Concerning certain natural molecular changes that dissipate heat.
OK, that's nice but that's NO WHERE near the beginning of life.

to "suggest" that that is a realistic place to assume all the rest of the many things that need to happen to have a single cell,
with operation more complex than a large city, is a HUGE leap of faith.
and not very scientific.

to me it's like someone saying ,
Look I watched this snail cross the entire back poach,
therefore we suggest that it's "a matter of inevitability" that it will eventually go around the globe.
In fact it's worse than that, It's like the snail goes around the world and builds boats and and airplanes along the way.

So Yeah, the theory of Aboigenesis is without any solid foundation.
Aliens and molecular heat transfer "inevitability" formulas ring hollow against this ...and other... chemist experimental data which show what true range of natural laws can ...and cannot do.

I hope you watch the video.
I hate that folks want to get it 2nd hand from me.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

Last edited by mr wonder; 08-22-2019 at 10:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2019, 10:13 AM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,108
Thanks: 10,495
Thanked 6,584 Times in 4,476 Posts
Default Re: James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained


Sir Fred Hoyle
British mathematician and astronomer

....Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell without panspermia was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that Earth as life's place of origin could be ruled out. He claimed:

The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

Though Hoyle declared himself an atheist,[31] this apparent suggestion of a guiding hand led him to the conclusion that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and ... there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."[32] He would go on to compare the random emergence of even the simplest cell without panspermia to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein" and to compare the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cubes simultaneously.[33]...
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

Last edited by mr wonder; 09-01-2019 at 10:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2019, 10:36 AM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,108
Thanks: 10,495
Thanked 6,584 Times in 4,476 Posts
Default Re: James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained



Dr. Orgel a theoretical inorganic chemist studied in this field at Oxford, the California Institute of Technology and the University of Chicago.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
been, explained, has, james, life, not, origin, the, tour

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0