James M Tour on Origins of Life

I cannot tell you what this video is about. It is a technical speech for those interested in Science. All I can say is the speaker is James M Tour who is one of the leading synthetic chemist of our day. This guy makes molecules for a living. My hope is the video will open the eyes to of some of the ATS Members on abiogenesis and macroevolution.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Speaking as a synthetic chemist, he is speaking out of his area of expertise. He understands how to manipulate chemicals to make other chemicals. Not the engine of evolution. Now if he was a biochemist, he would be speaking in his area. However lets run with this?

He has said that there is no scientist alive to day who understands macroevolution? Well he clearly does not undestand there is no bounary between macro and micro. Evolution, is evolution. There is no scientist today who understands gravity either? Yet there it is. Go on, test it, climb real high, and try to fly. It is self evident. Moving to synthetic chemistry. He does not understand (in the way he is implying about not understanding evolution) the mechanisms that drive the chemical reactions he does. However he does have the evidence it works, in that he holds patents, and has peer reviewed publications on the subject.

Last thing. He's an academic, a senior one. The last time he was in the lab doing chemistry, was decades ago. He has minions now. If he was "doing chemistry" he'd be a senior perhaps principal researcher in a Pharma company, or CRO.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Speaking as a synthetic chemist, he is speaking out of his area of expertise. He understands how to manipulate chemicals to make other chemicals. Not the engine of evolution. Now if he was a biochemist, he would be speaking in his area. However lets run with this?

He has said that there is no scientist alive to day who understands macroevolution? Well he clearly does not undestand there is no bounary between macro and micro. Evolution, is evolution. There is no scientist today who understands gravity either? Yet there it is. Go on, test it, climb real high, and try to fly. It is self evident. Moving to synthetic chemistry. He does not understand (in the way he is implying about not understanding evolution) the mechanisms that drive the chemical reactions he does. However he does have the evidence it works, in that he holds patents, and has peer reviewed publications on the subject.

Last thing. He's an academic, a senior one. The last time he was in the lab doing chemistry, was decades ago. He has minions now. If he was "doing chemistry" he'd be a senior perhaps principal researcher in a Pharma company, or CRO.

Hey there, I'm not going to disagree with any of your opinions there, Except . . . .that being aware that gravity makes things fall back to earth DOES NOT equal "Understanding Gravity".

originally posted by: 191stMIDET

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Speaking as a synthetic chemist, he is speaking out of his area of expertise. He understands how to manipulate chemicals to make other chemicals. Not the engine of evolution. Now if he was a biochemist, he would be speaking in his area. However lets run with this?

He has said that there is no scientist alive to day who understands macroevolution? Well he clearly does not undestand there is no bounary between macro and micro. Evolution, is evolution. There is no scientist today who understands gravity either? Yet there it is. Go on, test it, climb real high, and try to fly. It is self evident. Moving to synthetic chemistry. He does not understand (in the way he is implying about not understanding evolution) the mechanisms that drive the chemical reactions he does. However he does have the evidence it works, in that he holds patents, and has peer reviewed publications on the subject.

Last thing. He's an academic, a senior one. The last time he was in the lab doing chemistry, was decades ago. He has minions now. If he was "doing chemistry" he'd be a senior perhaps principal researcher in a Pharma company, or CRO.

Hey there, I'm not going to disagree with any of your opinions there, Except . . . .that being aware that gravity makes things fall back to earth DOES NOT equal "Understanding Gravity".

Yes, it means you understand one EFFECT of gravity, but come on.

a reply to: 191stMIDET

Actually that is not what I said, or tried to imply. We do NOT understand gravity, centuries after gaining the idea, we only now have discovered the waves, next perhaps the particle(s) invovled? Even then, we can not write a simple equation as to the cause, only the effect

However gravity is self evident in its existence, and effect. Same with evolution. As for abiogenesis (a separate topic to evolution). WE can not prove any hypothesis, short of time travel.

a reply to: Noinden

Go let him buy you lunch and you can tell him about all his misunderstandings lol.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Speaking as a synthetic chemist, he is speaking out of his area of expertise. He understands how to manipulate chemicals to make other chemicals. Not the engine of evolution. Now if he was a biochemist, he would be speaking in his area. However lets run with this?

He has said that there is no scientist alive to day who understands macroevolution? Well he clearly does not undestand there is no bounary between macro and micro. Evolution, is evolution. There is no scientist today who understands gravity either? Yet there it is. Go on, test it, climb real high, and try to fly. It is self evident. Moving to synthetic chemistry. He does not understand (in the way he is implying about not understanding evolution) the mechanisms that drive the chemical reactions he does. However he does have the evidence it works, in that he holds patents, and has peer reviewed publications on the subject.

Last thing. He's an academic, a senior one. The last time he was in the lab doing chemistry, was decades ago. He has minions now. If he was "doing chemistry" he'd be a senior perhaps principal researcher in a Pharma company, or CRO.

Well I guess that settles it. Move along folks. Nothing to see here.

Except that you didn't address any of his finer points, you just took the low hanging fruit and attacked his character... typical.

How many nanocars have you built?

a reply to: Noinden

Glad you addressed the science in the video, rather than making a general statement and moving on.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I might give it a watch later, but is the gist of it the usual " since we can't explain it, it must mean it was created by some belevolant creator!"?

a reply to: Sremmos80

He doesn't address god at all. Simply lays out the problems we face with prebiotic evolution.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I might give it a watch later, but is the gist of it the usual " since we can't explain it, it must mean it was created by some belevolant creator!"?

No, but he explains the complexity of life at the molecular level in a way that's easy to comprehend and awe inspiring.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: 191stMIDET

Actually that is not what I said, or tried to imply. We do NOT understand gravity, centuries after gaining the idea, we only now have discovered the waves, next perhaps the particle(s) invovled? Even then, we can not write a simple equation as to the cause, only the effect

However gravity is self evident in its existence, and effect. Same with evolution. As for abiogenesis (a separate topic to evolution). WE can not prove any hypothesis, short of time travel.

Fair enough friend!😃

a reply to: Noinden

Why don't you post some peer reviewed papers describing the chemistry behind macroevolution?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Noinden

Why don't you post some peer reviewed papers describing the chemistry behind macroevolution?

Macro and micro are the same process.

a reply to: Cypress

Chemically they are not sir.

a reply to: Cypress

I have had this same argument with this and other posters for years. It really comes down to them blocking their ears and going "la la la I can not hear you". Micro and Macro are distinctions people put on something that is a continuum,.

a reply to: Noinden

That is a weak point that is why no one cares. That is literally you saying well there is variation among species so we came from a single celled organism. That is no kind of explanation .

a reply to: Bone75

I did not attack his character neighbour, I pointed out that he is a synthetic chemist (as am I, he and I hold the same degree, a PhD in Synthetic Organic chemistry) and thus he is not a subject matter expert in the area. If he were a biochemist, geneticist, or bioinformaticist (I hold a masters in this) he might be better qualified to speak.

You do not understand what an ad homenin attack is.

The OP clearly states that they can not tell us what the video is about, thus why would I bother? I'm not wasting my time on talking science, when it has been made clear that is not something they wish to understand, and rather they will assume the academic is correct.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You stated very clearly in your OP you don't understand the contents of the video. I thus assume you don't want the chemistry discussed.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Because there is no such thing as macroevolution, only evolution. I am also pretty sure you are not subscribed to academic journals. Thus, I will not. You and other posters do not like it when myself and other scientists post papers. You prefer youtube videos.