Stephen Meyer & James Tour talk Lee Cronin & Assembly Theory | Nick Lane and the politics of science 

Yes we are little people...but we are made in the image of the Big God who unlike all of His other creation...breathed into us the breath of life and we became a living eternal soul.

@@alantasman8273 If god's made in your image, or vice versa, whatever, then the universe is definitely doomed, because he's got zero intelligence.

Humans created a very big god, a metaphorical construct for a higher authority (the laws of the universe) and a human collective conscience. We mirror this god in our actions. That we perceive this god as a person, an intelligent mind, is anthropomorphism (similar to animism), an illusion that humans have always used to make the incomprehensible easier to understand. We arose from "the dust of the ground" (as the bible says, and abiogenesis research assumes), and for this to happen it only required the laws of the universe (god) and lots of time. Despite those who scoff like Tour and Meyer, we will continue to use science to seek the truth.

@@jinnantonix4570 Please explain how of some 2500 prophesies in the scriptures, written over thousands of years, some 2000 of them have come about exactly as foretold. Some 400 of them were about Jesus the Christ. The probability of this happening is nil. The Scriptures are the supernatural word of God given to a lost and dying world. Jesus said those that deny me before man...I will deny before the Father.

@@alantasman8273these are the reasons to doubt the biblical prophesies: Firstly, biblical prophecies were most likely written after the events they purportedly predict. The prophecies were crafted to appear predictive but were actually written retrospectively to fit events that had already occurred. This perspective suggests that biblical authors may have tailored their accounts to bolster religious beliefs or political agendas. Biblical prophecies may be interpreted symbolically or allegorically rather than as literal predictions of future events. Mmany prophecies are poetic or metaphorical expressions of theological concepts rather than precise forecasts of specific historical occurrences. Prophecies in the Bible have multiple potential fulfillments, making it difficult to determine whether a prophecy has genuinely come to pass. Additionally, interpretations of fulfillment may vary depending on one's religious or theological beliefs. The reliability in the interpretation of certain biblical texts or passages is questionable, including those containing prophecies, due to discrepancies among manuscripts or evidence of editing and redaction over time. Compare biblical prophecies with prophecies found in other religious texts or traditions - similar themes or motifs appear in various religious contexts, suggesting that prophecies are a common feature of human culture rather than evidence of divine revelation. Finally, the possibility of supernatural intervention or divine communication is nil. Consequently, biblical prophecies are mythological or legendary narratives rather than genuine predictions inspired by a higher power. Considering all this, the bible is a very unreliable proof of a supernatural god. If you are interested in a scholarly interpretation of biblical prophesies, Bart Ehrman is a good online source.

Excellent We are on board with you Stephen C Meyer and Denis Noble

Yes. Bless him for making the sheep able to sleep at night.

@@gracefulsledge2857 The sheep lay down att night knowing they are safe. The wolves and atheists are tormented trying to hammer a square steel girder into a tiny round hole.

@@peterzinya1 Nonsense. You're talking out your ass. Sheep lay down at night far from feeling safe. All you fuckers do is whine about how the end of the works is near and how all the unarmed woke the left are coming to get you.

Disturbing...why don't these guys learn some real science instead of peddling this horsesh*t?!

Meyer is a politically motivated conman. The Discovery Institute is openly a propaganda mouth piece created by the evangelical far-right to force their religion back into our lives. Just look up the Wedge Document they made at their founding. These people are malicious actors.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

“NO ‘Serious’ Scientist thinks that Life began by ‘Chance’.” ~ Dr. Stephen C. Meyer/Signature in the Cell ~~~ :)

@@shawnambrisco4598 Written by someone with no qualifications in cellular biology.

@@mirandahotspring4019 Yeah, Stephen Meyer is a Discovery Institute hack who was never a real scientist, and Tour stopped being one years ago to become a preacher.

@@mirandahotspring4019 True, neither Meyer nor Tour understand anything about biology or evolution. They are well out of their depth.

They can call him a "bad cop", but they can't call him a liar.

Yeah, mr Tour, grill those pseudo scientific dr frankenstein wannabes.

I like both, and there is a place for both. But I gotta tell you, I love Dr Tour's direct, no nonsense way of saying things: "Nobody knows!..."

Herzegovina. Great place.

Pozdrav iz Hrvatske 👍

@@sliglusamelius8578 Yes it is

@@eladio_cro_warface Pozdrav. Tako mi je drago što ima još ljudi sa naših područja koji prate dr. Tour-a, Mayer-a, Lennox-a...

​​@@MultiSky7pratim sve navedene i slične već koju godinu da. Ima nas više nego mislimo :) Silvio Papić je naš pa poprati i njega, ima kvalitetu..

Let me finish that sentence for you, "... intellectually dishonest liars in the scientifically community."

@@mirandahotspring4019 Do you always defame people?

@@JungleJargon Learn the difference between calling someone out and defaming them. It's only defamation if it's intentionally untrue!

@@mirandahotspring4019 So you believe you are being fair?

Absolutely!

It is there now. In the description, click Show More, scroll to the bottom, and click Show Transcript.

Amen and I pray for these men also Father and I pray in Jesus name your only begotten son who you gave for our sake that he would bear our sins and give us his Holiness and then you raised him from the dead and gave the people that you would judge the world one day by that man and I hope for people to listen to you and read your word and pray so they will have salvation before it's too late. Father I never needed to understand everything about your creation but some people seem to have to prove but I hope they read John chapter 14 verse 21 and take the deal and I praise you Father God Almighty and Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost amen

@@DsleIvester Amen. God bless you in the name of the Lord Jesus.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

“Science doesn’t ‘S-a-y’ Anything; Scientists Do.” ~ Prof John Lennox ~~~ (Make that 'THREE' !!!) ~~~ :) ~~~ 'GLORY' to GOD/JESUS !!! ~~~ :)

Meyer has all his life only dropped intellectual shit on the world.

Did I miss something? WHO are these two gargantuan intellects you speak of?? Perhaps they're in a different video.

Many of them the work of his students that he has appended his name to.

​@@mirandahotspring4019that's called a citation, not a paper.

@@marcleysens7716 How about the paper he had to withdraw because it was plagiarised and fake?

@@marcleysens7716 Yep. Mr. Tour isn't as honest as he'd have you believe.

@@marcleysens7716 He insisted his name be added to one paper on the strength of a brief hallway discussion about it. Try Googling "the honesty of James Tour"

Robert Shapiro started the 3rd Way of Evolution website because Neo-Darwinism wasn't getting it done. I took a Summer course with Lynn Margulis at Amhurst after she invited me. Met her at UCLA at her lecture where she trashed Natural Selection, edit; first night hall was 1/4 full, rest of week standing room only. I intrigued her with my engineering background and my view that Life had to be engineered. She of course had her Gaia Hypothesis even back then, 1979. My company gave me a paid Sabbatical to go. Did you ever meet Lynn?

@@MountainFisheryou’re thinking of James Shapiro

@@MountainFisher Lynn Margulis was brilliant.

@@sharpie6888 That's correct. Two very different Shapiros.

@@sharpie6888 You're correct, I don't know why I confused them, getting old.

somos 2 🙋‍♂️

Is this what passes as philosophy here? We can't prove a negative. Until you show that there's more that exists beyond the material - and you clearly cannot show that - then it literally is all we know exists.

If you have evidence of something else feel free to present it to the scientific community. Until then there is no logical reason to believe something else exists.

​@@Reclaimer77 Near Death Experience research claims evidence for unnatural events such as people 'leaving their body' during surgery and witnessing things in other rooms that occurred during the time they were incapacitated.

@@Reclaimer77 at what point after a century of trying to force the material existence to create the material existence, do we figure out that we have the wrong foundation. True science leads us where the evidence illuminates. The extreme symbiotic relationships between material existence is evidence that and intelligence outside the material existence is responsible. If I see patterns of code in the sand, even though I don’t know the symbols or the meaning, the only explanation is that intelligence outside of the sand, and the waves were responsible . That is evidence that demands a verdict. Likewise, the complexity of the fine, tuned universe, demands a fine tuner. The complexity of chemicals organizing under the laws of the universe, demands a chemist. The complexity of design that demands symbiotic relationships demands an intelligent designer . Reject the evidence, that is your right. But do not reject that the evidence is evidence for a supernatural intelligence. God’s best on our quest for absolute truth

@@crimsonking5961 the evidence that is produced and conveyed by these two gentlemen is rejected without discussion or contemplation because it does not fit the man-made definition of science. It was easy to define out intelligent design, when the best and brightest thought that the cell was a gelatin, substance housed in a simple casing. It is now simple to fabricate fictional stories, keeping the fantasy that men has no one to answer to besides ourselves. “All things are possible through Satan, who deceived us”. God’s best on our quest for absolute truth

No, still pushing their pseudoscience nonsense!

No, no one on "the other side" is conceding anything to these two. The offer nothing, they only attack current research because they don't want science to succeed, that would be too much of a blow to their fragile egos. All they can do is cry god did it.

No, they're not. They preaching to the choir. Nobody else is listening to them or cares about their objections.

@@nitsujism You must not have watched the video then.

Yep, I can see why Lee only ended up talking about the assembly theory now - especially in that disastrous debate of his at Harvard. lol

These speakers and this channel is dedicated to just that: keeping you ignorant by selling you a comfortable lie. A fantasy. Yes life now is complex because it took 4 billion years of evolution to develop that complexity. They won't tell you that because they want you ignorant.

Jordan Peterson is a creationist loon with no evidence for any of his lies.

I encourage you. As you listen more and see their diagrams, you will understand more. Somewhat like scripture. Thousands of words to describe what God did in one breath after He sculpted Adam from the earth.

We are investigating OOL because we don't know how it happened. How do you investigating OOL without using your mind???

in other words, they can not replicate using intelligence what they pretend happened without any

@@bogdanpopescu1401 how would you replicate it without Intelligence...

@@crimsonking5961 ask them, not me :) for me a 100% valid proof would be to start with the conditions of the early Earth and let them work without any intervention to produce a living organism; anything less than that can only give a lesser or bigger level of confidence that life could originate out of matter alone; splitting the whole process in a few steps for example and working them separately would give a pretty high confidence; but obviously it doesn't seem we are anywhere close

@@bogdanpopescu1401 We don't know all the conditions of an early earth or how long life took to arise. It could have been a thousand years. The best we can do right now is see if its possible for components of proto cells to form naturally.

The problem for -creationists- cdesign proponentsists is that to be taken seriously, they need to show their god exists, and document the magical incantations it uses to bring about universes and life out of nothing. That would indeed be a sight to see!

We know He exists. We do not try to explain away this evidence. But, what should be more understood, is no one has shown that it all could have occurred in some other way.@@Sparrow-hawk-666

@@rtmcdge Prove it.

@@Sparrow-hawk-666 I would be very careful using the word prove. The question of God isn't a scientific one, which deals with some proofs, but a philosophical one, usually dealing with evidence not proof.

@@Sparrow-hawk-666 I don't think it's mandatory for creationists to show God exists (in the sense of producing him so that we can see, touch him directly). We also can't directly do that for dark matter or dark energy. In fact these things are undetectable by any of our tools. But we accept their existence. Because we see their effects. Similarly creationists infer God by his effects on nature

"Undirected random material natural processes have never been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing Functional / Coded / Digital information" You guys repeat this lie all the time, but it's still a lie. It has been observed, period. Educate yourself about the research you are claiming to be an expert in. In 2021 the University of Tokyo created DNA using pre-biotic materials. That RNA then self-replicated, self-diversified, and developed complexity (evolution) all on it's own. Yes (gasp) it added "information" to itself without a "mind" doing it. I should have thought once we found amino-acids in meteorites that maybe some of you would get a clue how all this works. How it's not a magical god doing it all. How it's not as complex as Creationists pretend it is. Life is simply chemistry, that's all. There isn't "coded information" in DNA either, it's just chemical reactions assembled by physics. "Information" isn't a physical object!!! DNA is a structure of physical objects arranged by geometry and physics. The "code" is just what we made up by naming those proteins. Stephen Myer has made millions convincing idiots life is a computer program, but that's just not so.

That is just an ignorant lie.

@@maylingng4107 I completely agree, or at best it's just a string of assertions for which the evidence in rebuttal is extensive and overwhelming. It's a favourite technique of James Tour to assert, falsely, that there is no evidence for x, y and z, or assert that published research does not say what it very clearly says, or to misquote persistently the public statements of scientists, even after he has been corrected; or to engage in angry _ad hominem_ tirades against individuals and fields of research whose interests he dislikes, and he often stoops to insults. Which is unfortunately a very bad role model to set for his supporters, many of whom are not scientificalky literate or even well disposed to science, and consequently are biddable, and prone to mirror the same faults he exhibits. They have a predetermined destination that they want to arrive at by 'scientific' means, but they ignore or try to ridicule any science that is inconsistent with their goals, while manufacturing more convenient theories for which they do not have evidence. Many of them do not know any better, but James Tour does, or at least should. I find him to be extremely dishonest, psychologically devious and manipulativeo. It's depressing to read so many sycophantic and / or misleading comments in support of him.

But what if the experiment shows the cell could form naturally?

But immediately it would show that a supernatural explanation for life is not necessary. Nevertheless, once life has been recreated, research can move to see what conditions arise naturally for it to do so.

@@nitsujism Wrong, it would prove that life can only be explained by intelligent control.....

Say you know nothing about OoL without saying you know nothing about OoL.

@@mirandahotspring4019 "The greatest enemy of human knowledge is its own EGO."...🙂🙂🙂

I think Stephen Meyer was interviewed by Jordan Peterson

@@thadofalltrades I will check that out. Thanks.

@thadofalltrades I've checked it out and can't see anything. If you see it, maybe you can send me the link. Thanks.

@@countvlad8845 it must've been Joe Rogan's show

Has god been observed making life? I love the double-standard you Creationists apply to this debate.

@@Reclaimer77 So are you or aren't you okay with not having an explanation?

​@Reclaimer77 KJV And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Yes, He was observed. Are there any other questions I can assist you with?

You haven't listened to this talk have you?

Ummm that was a quote from a man made book ​@@stephanosjacobus7717

They’re both fucking chumps. Tour needed to be slapped around by his mummy.

So, nothing but more ad homs again huh? Way to go, "scientist."

@@codonmatrix4510 Nothing? you cannot read? Hundreds of lies, willful deceit by the 2 clowns. They preach biblical creation, reject the Fact and Science of Evolution, and want to replace science in the public schools with biblical creationism. Have you got past the 10th grade? Sounds like, you did not.

@@maylingng4107 Exactly WHAT "facts" do you have in regards to abiogenesis? You have proof? If so, show us how it's done. Reality is, we all know your "facts" are nothing but your hopes and wishes. What magical unguided process created life? Any idea? In fact, show me any unguided process that can create the complex integrated systems involved in the simplest of life. Go ahead. Explain how random molecules became enantiomericly pure and self organized to create long chain proteins. Go ahead, and if you can do that, then explain where the encoded information came from. However, we both know you won't do that because you CAN'T, but you still believe it. Believe what you want, being willfully ignorant is your choice, might as well enjoy it I guess.

@@codonmatrix4510 Abiogenesis is in the hypothesis stage. More research is still needed to confirm a scientific theory. Synthetic life has already been manufactured in the laboratory. Or are you ignorant of the science? I can explain the process of abiogenesis, but you would not understand any of it, and it would take more than 100 pages. So instead of that, just this once, I am going to very briefly summarize where the current research stands. *Before that summary, I am going to say that you do not have any alternative, or s shred of evidence for any other process, especially not for a creation by our god. Here is the challenge only once: "provide evidence that what I summarize is incorrect and your god creating life is correct!" (I expect that you will not be able to answer and your lying mouth will be shut hereafter* *The Origin of Life* While we have not defined completely the process by which the first life form was assembled, it does not mean that we are clueless about the origins. We do have many experiments that have revealed some of the internal processes. More evidence is needed, for sure, since we are at the hypothesis stage only. Here is one of the most rational hypothesis from Dr. Jack Szostak, (a Nobel prize laurate and professor at Harvard Medical School). Since man has walked on earth, he had an incessant curiosity to understand his beginnings. Not being able to find a rational answer, he invented a bunch of creation stories, all of which have one thing in common: because no human could conceive a natural process, he had to resort to a supernatural explanation. His understanding was further confused by his observed experience that “only life can ‘beget’ life. First and foremost, let us differentiate the beginning of life (abiogenesis) from evolution (evolving of species). One does not have anything to do with the other: the first explains generation of life from ‘non-life’, while the latter explains how species evolve, once there is life. Second, let us understand that a scientific theory is the explanation of a specific set of facts. Claiming that evolution does not work because it does not explain the beginning of life, is like claiming that an umbrella does not work, because it does not predict when it is going to rain. Here are the creationist arguments against abiogenesis. 1. Spontaneous generation of complex organisms is impossible. Spontaneous generation was tested and proven false by Francesco Rei (1668), by Lazzaro Spallanzini (1765) and Louis Pasteur (1859) 2. The probability of s single cell forming is 1 in 10 raised to the 50,000 power. Let us disregard the fact this is a totally made up number it shows that early life could not have been as complex as modern cells. 3. (Supplied by the genius of Ben Stein). “Life was created by lighting striking a mud puddle; and that is just silly. Parenthetically, Stein is correct in that there is one book which claims that life was formed from dirt --- The bible. 4. The Miller-Urey experiment did not create life. This is like claiming that flight to the moon is impossible, because the Wright brothers didn’t. *So let us examine what science can tell us about the origins of life* We know from experiments in the fields of Astronomy, Chemistry, Geology and Meteorology that the early pre-biotic earth was filled with organic molecules, the building blocks of life. We also know that organic molecules are very common in space. We also know that early life has been extremely simple…meaning no complex protein machinery in place. Modern cells separate themselves from the environment with a lipid bilayer. The problem with modern phospholipids is that they are too good at what they do. They form a nearly impenetrable barrier. Modern cells must use proteins to move molecules across their surface. But life did not have to start with modern chemicals! The pre-biotic environment contain many simple fatty acids. Under the range of pH they spontaneously form stable vesicles and they are permeable to small organic molecules (no complex proteins are required to get stuff in). When a vesicle encounters free fatty acids in solution, it will incorporate them (eating and growth are driven purely by thermodynamics). When a vesicle grows, it adopts a tubular branched shape (because the surface are grows faster than volume), which is easily divided by natural forces (waves, currents, rocks, etc.). When this division takes place, none of the contents of the vesicle are lost. *So what about the genetic material?* Modern nucleotides are too stable and require complex machinery to replicate. But the pre-biotic environment contained hundreds of different types of nucleotides, not just DNA and RNA. All it took is 1 to self polymerize (recent experiments have shown that some of these are capable of self polymerization, such as Phosphoramidate DNA). Monomers will base pair with a single stranded template and self ligate. They can also polymerize in solution and spontaneously form new templates, or extend existing templates. *No special sequences are required, it is just chemistry! But how does this become life?* Fatty acids are permeable to nucleotide monomers but not polymers. Once spontaneous polymerization occurs within the vesicle, the polymer is trapped. Floating through the ocean the polymer containing vesicles will encounter convection currents, such as set up by hydrothermal vents. The high temperatures will separate the polymer strands and increase the membrane’s permeability to monomers. Once the temperature cools, spontaneous polymerization can occur (and the cycle repeats). The polymer, due to surrounding ions, will increase the osmotic pressure within the vesicle, stretching its membrane. A vesicle with more polymer through simple thermodynamics will “steal” lipids from a vesicle with less polymer. They essentially, “eat” each other. The vesicle that contains a polymer that can replicate faster, will grow and divide faster, and will eventually dominate the population, and now EVOLUTION can begin.

@@maylingng4107 Well since you have it all figured out, why didn't you take Tour's challenge? You would be famous if you did. I understand you believe what you say, the problem however is you CAN'T do it. The chemistry doesn't work, ESPECIALLY in an unguided format. You see, your main problem is that you are stuck with having to prove it happened WITHOUT intelligent guidance, because it's the only thing that you think will push God out of the picture, which is your REAL goal, not science. You would believe that the first man was a gingerbread man if it allowed you to push out or discredit God. THAT is the truth. You will accept ANY concept whatsoever, as long as it leaves out God, that is your only criteria, everything else, no matter how irrational it is, is viable in your mind.

well-known bio-chemist from Germany told me that even a computing power of several quadrillions operations per second are by far (!!!) not sufficient to decipher the riddle of life.......

So tell us, if life "must" have been the product of an even more complex mind, then what was that mind a product of? After all, a creator is generally more complex than its creation. So if complexity requires a creator, what created the creator? How many levels down do you people need to go?

@@Sparrow-hawk-666 "Leszek, unfortunately, you are already too old to understand this..."..

Dr Zanil has already dismantled the assembly theory...

According to Meyer it's not even a hypothesis, just a formal statement of the problem itself.

The Bible has a term for those that refuse even consider Biblical worldview...it calls them willingly ignorant. 2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Perhaps it's because very few real scientists are on Tour's side, and are more embarrassed by him than anything else.

The only "scientists" on Tour' side are the mouthpieces from the Discovery Institute. I can't think of anyone else; Can you?

He never suggested that many scientists are on his side. They are not, and he knows it, and doesn't hesitate to admit it. Citing Wikipedia as an authority is kind of silly (no offense). And besides, it isn't about "sides." Science is not politics. If one scientist has the facts ( which Tour DOES), then it makes NO difference how many scientists agree or disagree with him....because even if EVERY scientist disagreed with him that would just mean that every scientist is wrong ! Because facts are facts, not opinions.

@@maylingng4107 Yeah, pretty much. Tour may have once been a reputable scientist, but he left that behind long ago. And the so-called "Discovery Institute" doesn't employ scientists, just preachers wearing white lab coats.

@@maylingng4107 There's no science behind Tour's OOL posturing, and no scientists at the Discovery Institute either - just preachers wearing white coats playing at being scientists.

Dave Farina made Tour look like an absolute idiot in their last debate. It's not a very difficult task. All tour can do is attack current science on OoL with misleading intellectually dishonest statements and quote mine from published papers, deliberately misinterpreting them. He can offer nothing in return, only god did it.

@@mirandahotspring4019 You can't really believe that. Young Dave pointed to the TITLE of a paper and exclaimed _"It's right there"!_ That is, he _believed_ the title. He thought the title was all that he needed to read. Meanwhile, Dr.Tour was discussing the _content_ of that paper in detail and even speaking knowledgeably about the supporting materials. Poor Dave.

You sound like a cheerleader, @@mirandahotspring4019. Go! Team! Go!

@@KenJackson_US Oh come on! Tour got owned! He lied and was exposed for it. After the Tour/Farina debate Lee Cronin was the only one who responded to tell him how ridiculous he is. That prompted James and the DI to convince Lee to come to Harvard for a "round table discussion", and it was absolutely hilarious. It was just several scientists and philosophers dumping all over James for hours, and watching him squirm. They made a complete fool of him.

@@mirandahotspring4019: _"He lied ..."_ That's easy to say. What did he say that wasn't true? Do you understand chemistry?

And no scientists ever in the history of history, has said a life form "converted" to another life form. Are you people all on drugs or something??? Also what the hell is a "body plan"? That sounds like something Stephen Myer and his group of Creationist misfits made up. Pretending life is a set of blueprints and schematics from a computer and other stupid analogies.

I have to ask...what makes you comfortable with lying like this? Isn't there something in the bible about bearing false witness?

I believe that’s called transmutation. you’re absolutely correct.

It would be "finny"

Probably not, but it certaintly had an ape-like anchestor.

Creationists do not like to be challenged.

@@maylingng4107 That's wrong. I'm arguing the Tour side and my posts are blocked repeatedly. I can't reply to anybody about actual science. Grrr...

@@sliglusamelius8578 Tour has no real arguments on the Origin of Life, all his reasoning is from his religion. He is a messianic Jew (Jews for Jesus) a small cult under one half million members. He is also a propagandist for the Discovery Institute, and anti-science fundamentalist cult. My posts are not deleted, in spite of my criticisms.

So who designed your god?

In design you have a goal. There's no goal in evolution other than to survive, and even then it's gets it wrong. More species have gone extinct than are alive today by far. Intelligent Design is just Creationism with the magic removed. It doesn't answer any questions like the how, or the why. Because the secret answer is "God".

Trouble is, he can't show he's right. He just claims it and screams in rage.

@@Sparrow-hawk-666What exactly do you think he has to show? He claims we have not solved the OOL problem. Has OOL been solved to date? If so, who solved it and when. Not so easy is it?

@@KelliAnnWinkler Wee Jimmie Tour claims it's impossible. How does he do that? Magic? Because is ain't science.

@@Sparrow-hawk-666 He has NEVER claimed it is impossible. His claim that no one has "created" life yet is true. He also says that someday we may solve the question of OOL. Again, has the problem been solved? No, it has not been solved YET. Maybe someday, but NOT yet. That's science.

@@KelliAnnWinkler Wee Jimmie Tour is a young earth creationist. That's why he claims abiogenesis is impossible. He denies it with every breath. He lives and breaths his daffy religion.

Hey, actually, Jesus Christ did scientific practices when he was on Earth which seemed like magic to the uneducated natural man. Once we get to heaven, we can all understand and replicate the exact Scientific practices that Jesus Christ did on Earth with our new spiritual bodies.

That's not actually the case. The research is legitimate and useful even if the end result isn't Abiogenesis. The general public does not care about the subject so there's no actual benefit to the hype. Journalists often engage in wishful thinking or otherwise don't understand the problem.

That's an interesting claim. Do you have a citation to back that up or do you need it to be true?

99% of Science is failure. OOL research is a monumentally daunting task. Trying to recreate the conditions for life to occur is nigh impossible. Not an easy task by any means. Takes years of work to validate. More like they dug themselves into a hole for decades and can no longer escape.

@@Ab_Def_ you cannot provide citations on motives.

@@sentientflower7891 The commenter made a claim about thousands of legitimate scientists lying. A claim like that requires evidence, not just assertion.

Dr. James Tour previously proposed that he would give a newly dead cell with all its parts still in place to abiogenesis scientists to allow them to try and bring it back to life...he gave then a kickstart with everything in place....but they would not take him up on the offer....I wonder why?

@@alantasman8273 Because reviving a dead jalopy tells us nothing about how abiogenesis happened. Even you creos are forced to admit that once upon a time, the earth was lifeless. Then life appeared. What is your scientifically testable theory? And stop spamming crap.

A fake professor calling others ‘frauds’. Ironic.

@@michaelportaloo1981 you can’t compare a RU-vidr doing science communication and research with a creationist maniac with anger control problems.

@@BenjaminSteber I didn't compare them. I only mentioned Dave.

@@michaelportaloo1981 are you a creationist and/or biblical literalist?

@@BenjaminSteber Why? What has what people believe or don't believe got to do with what they claim to know or whether they pretend to be what they are not?

No, he doesn't. But he is able to expose the intellectual dishonesty of people like James Tour.

​@@mirandahotspring4019your standards of evidence are low.

@@sentientflower7891 Your standards of evidence are totally absent, You believe in fairy tales.

@@Sparrow-hawk-666 okay. How did Abiogenesis happen? How many different pathways exist? Could life exist with less than twenty amino acids?

@@sentientflower7891 I've no idea. That's why it's the subject of *RESEARCH!* You know, research is what scientists do when they don't have an answer to a question they are interested in. They don't just read the book of genesis and think that provides any answer, the way Tour does.

Well, you can certainly take issue with Cronin's assembly theory and its usefulness. I don't know enough about it to comment on that. Maybe it's totally whacked and useless. But let's say Cronin's particular hypothesis is wrong. Doesn't somehow prove abiogenesis wasn't a reality. The point is, at the beginning of the universe, so far as cosmologists are able to tell, life was impossible anywhere, because the energy density and fluctuation was just too high for stable molecules to exist. Then at some point, it cooled down sufficiently to allow life to appear. The question is whether it appeared naturally, or was zapped into existence by... a god! I prefer thinking it appeared naturally, because there's no evidence for a god zapping life into existence, and there never has been. Just because we don't know what natural mechanisms caused it, yet, doesn't mean the god notion wins by default.

I hope you stayed long enough to listen to the entire discussion, May Ling. And why dont you email Dr Tour to have a Zoom session with him to discuss these issues or go on his podcast since you are such a highly educated scientist in this field.

@@xtnese I do not waste time with people who claim that Jesus appeared in the flesh in their bedroom for a conversation, as James Tour does. I am busy in bio-research instead of preaching propaganda, unlike Dr. Tour. I have a serious contempt for the members of the Discovery Institute (Tour is a member) who are on a mission to poison young minds. (P.S. - I have participated in a group discussion in the past with him, a compete waste of time that was).

@@maylingng4107 I appreciate that you take the time out from your busy Bio Research to reply to me. Is it in the area of origin of Life? I'm not a big fan of the Discovery Institute either, as they deny Jesus as the Intelligent Designer behind creation. I'm not sure what role Dr Tour plays there. Im a disciple of the Ken Ham, Answers In Genesis, Young Earth Creationist Christian school of thought. It is evolution that poisons young minds by telling them that they are merely products of time and chance without any purpose. I believe evolutionary ideology has led to the rise in school tragedies , like Columbine, among many others. This rise has been in correlation with the removal of Prayer, Bible reading, the teaching of the Golden Rule , and the Ten Commandments removed from our classrooms in 1963 courtesy of Madalyn Murray O'Hair. This Easter Season I pray that Jesus reveals Himself to you too.

Your being silly. Read Meyer's books and you will see for yourself that he is VERY well-informed on the whole history of Origin of Life research up to the present day. And Tour is literally one of the most brilliant scientists in America today, and uniquely qualified to comment on these topics as both a synthetic organic chemist and a world-renowned nanotechnologist.

@@CarlMCole Meyer very well informed? you mean when he is not lying through his teeth, which is almost never. Meyer has no education in biology and never published a single peer-reviewed article on the Origin of Life, and neither has Tour. Meyer is a charter member of the Discovery Institute, and organization that seeks to replace the teaching of evolution with biblical creation in the public schools. There were more than a dozen court cases about this, Meyer and the DI lost all of them. The most famous was Kitzmiller v. Dover BofE in 2005, where the teaching of Intelligent Design (advocated by Meyer) was totally discredited and Judge Jones (an church going Christian) ruled it to be not science, but religion. Silly? I have a word for your nonsense, which decorum does not allow me to write. You are totally ignorant of the research in this field, where gigantic progress has been and is being made by legitimate scientists, not by religious loons and pretenders. Meyer's book "Signature in the Cell" Where he attacks evolution and argues for "intelligent design" --- to call the book pseudo-science is an understatement, a total dishonest trash is far more appropriate. PS: Meyer and Tour display their "brilliance" by rejecting the fact of evolution. Can you name a single science organization anywhere on the face of the earth that rejects evolution? So much for their brilliance and yours.

I find it terribly disingenuous of you to create your own idea of what someone else believes. Nobody believes what you suggest except you apparently. I have not seen even one person in the field ever suggest a wizard. If you want to take that approach, then I suggest that your wizard is time, and it didn't even mutter an incantation, it just zapped into life on it's own out of nothing but raw elements. Maybe YOU should go to school, or at least try to think, instead of practicing your version of a parrot that repeats everything someone else tells it. You screech and yowl constantly yet provide not one single shred of evidence, but you have great faith in your fictional narrative that you try so hard to push. In fact, you are so clueless that you don't even realize it, you just keep digging your hole deeper. Well enjoy your failure I guess. You seem to love playing the fool and relish it like a pig in it's own mire. Go ahead, keep wallowing, it's quite amusing.

Joined 6 months ago. Surely this isn't a bot account.

@@johnjackson9767 I take it you are as scientifically illiterate as Mr Tour?

They've discovered and amply displayed the fraudulence of the so-called science of evolution.

They've discovered a source of cash from gullible believers.

@Sparrow-hawk-666 They have clearly discovered the ways of attracting two colossal minds like you!

They've discovered and amply displayed the fraudulence of the so-called "science" of evolution.

They've discovered and shown the emptiness of evolution and revealed that it's not science.

Psalm 2, 19, 83, 139 !

My understanding is that the 10^79,000,000,000 is the interactomes or protein to protein reactions in a microbial yeast cell. However the mammalian cell does not have that type of interactome, but rather ribosomes, these are complex organelle structures, that decode mRNA and build all the functioning proteins. The likelihood of either ultra complex system requisite for cell function evolving by “happy accidents” is still akin to attempting to find a particular nano quantum dot, in a sea of a centillion multiverses.

This is absolutely mind-boggling!!!

Okay? So what?

@@SigmaValence So teleological considerations make abiogenesis ridiculously impossible, that's what.

The paper that figure was pulled from has been shown to be garbage.

Oh dear. Even Jame's colleagues are coming out about his ranpant plagiarism and false statements. That's not good. Looks like Lee didn't actually do anything wrong. James's own 'friends' are outing him as a complete fraud, with evidence of all the papers he's had to retract due to fraud and plagiarism. I'm starting to think he's not as honest as he attempts to portray himself as.

Lee Cronin ain't the enemy. Stop treating him as an enemy. None of the scientists engaged in origin of life research are enemies nor is there any sort of conspiracy on their part to sell Abiogenesis to the public since the general public and the educated public and professional public don't even know that Abiogenesis is a subject matter much less a matter of dispute.

Perhaps, but so will all of us sinners. How many lies have you told in your life?

@@sentientflower7891 This is what the Christian nationalists do. Cry about being oppressed while organizing hate campaigns against one honest researcher who had the unfortunate luck of getting into this psychopaths crosshairs, this 'Dr' James Tour.

Sweetie, abiogenesis and OOL is making the claims that they cannot prove. You don’t disprove something that never happened and there is no evidence it did.

@@crackheadbiden3273 There's more evidence for abiogenesis than for your magical wizard, sweetiepie. Your god is a figment of your imagination, and that's the only place it exists in.

@@crackheadbiden3273 Evolution is a FACT, it has been observed in nature and duplicated in the laboratory. Abiogenesis' is in the hypothesis stage. While there is much evidence, still not sufficient to form a scientific theory. Dr. Jack Szostak and his team are close, perhaps a decade of two away understanding the entire process.

@@crackheadbiden3273 The Farina cheerleaders don't realise that anyway..

@@maylingng4107 That was something for the satirical magazine..

Your god is naked? He's always portrayed with a loincloth, at least. Evolution is real, but your belief is fake, Deal with it.

I think Heaven is another realm.

His evidence is the same that drives the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is risen, He is not here! Why seek the Living from among the dead?

I'll pray for you

Assertions and accusations are not evidence dude. I can make a video saying that my co worker steals my lunch everyday. That makes it true? No judge will take your confirmation bias as evidence.

No one has seen any of his critics since he challenged them to answere real world quastions so what on earth are you babbling about??????. Lee Cronin showed up once. Didn't answer a single question and proceeded to cry like a child and call Dr tour a meanie! Buhahaha!!! What a joke...

@@jIMwILLIAMS-im7kk LOL I love how you all think people are sitting around waiting for this buffoon James Tour to "issue challenges". And when they ignore the challenge, because they ALL KNOW Tour's point is to advance Creationism, he claims it's a victory. Critics??? Half these people didn't even know or cared who this man was until he started ignorantly calling them frauds. James Tour went to Harvard and got his face kicked in, very politely by REAL scientists who follow evidence. Not "Jesus loves me and said he made me special".

So desperate for having nothing but ad hominem attacks, aren't we? By the way, when will Dave stop using "professor" as a fake degree in his channel's name? So much for "hype", what a hypocrite.

And how would it do that, when nothing else in science has? Tour _et al._ won't even accept assembly theory is valid science! Ultimately a scientific theory is only worth anything if it makes testable predictions that if shown to be false by experiment or other observation, falsify the theory. I don't know off-hand whether assembly theory meets that criterion, or is just a working hypothesis at present, but intelligent design certainly isn't, because it postulates the existence of a being that's inherently unfalsifiable.

Translation: We only accept science when it points to god.

He needed a real cell because he didn't have millions of years to evolve one, or build one from scratch. Simples. Doesn't mean anything about a living cell needing supernatural magic or the wizard you love to worship.

The feat, which has occupied 20 scientists for more than 10 years at an estimated cost of $40m, was described by one researcher as "a defining moment in biology". Craig Venter, the pioneering US geneticist behind the experiment, said the achievement heralds the dawn of a new era in which new life is made to benefit humanity, starting with bacteria that churn out biofuels, soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and even manufacture vaccines.

LOL. DESIGNED!!!

​@@Sparrow-hawk-666 So you can't scientifically explain OOL cuz you need millions of years of evolution to provide you with a live cell, got it! 🙄

@@DetVen Well, surely even a creo can figure out that if we already knew how abiogenesis had happened, we wouldn't be doing research into it. It's you lot who claim it's impossible because it's not mentioned in your book of genesis. Oh, and we have a pretty good understanding of evolution, which is not the same as abiogenesis - it's you lot who are clueless about it.

Neither do creos! :)

​@@Sparrow-hawk-666if creos don't have a brain, evo failed them! =).

None of what you just said makes any sense

@@SigmaValenceYou inability to comprehend a question does not make the question invalid...it just means that you don't have the mental resources to contemplate an answer.

@@alantasman8273 Yikes. You didn't even pose a question, you just vomited some meaningless word salad. Quantum entanglement has nothing to do with any God.

@@SigmaValenceYou made my point...it was meaningless to you because you are unable to comprehend the question or its implications...that's alright...deep thinking is not the forte of some people.

Plagiarism is very different from putting one's name on a paper when one's lab and lab associates did "most of the work". Tour is a senior scientist and that's how publishing works. He runs the lab!

So you don’t think he is guilty of playgiorisme?

@@thomasknudsen3686 Plagiarism is copying someone else's work, so no, I don't think that he is guilty of plagiarism. Senior scientists often get their names appended to work they didn't actually physically do. Good grief, does he have to start every Bunsen burner in his lab? Does he have to clean off the countertops? If he conceives of an experiment but never sets foot in the lab, did he not "do the research"? What level of "do the research" are you wanting?

I can only refer to some of the accusations his coworkers have come up with.

@@thomasknudsen3686 Do tell. I don't truck in hearsay, and neither should you. Bearing false witness is a sin in my world.

"Checkmate, and that's it, as you don't have the slightest chance to refute the scientific facts shown in the video. My condolences for your loss..."🤕🤕🤕🤕😏

@@georgbenad4436 Checkmate, George? You have very little education, if any in biology. I teach bio-science at an elite university and perform original research on OoL, which is not done by Meyer or Tour. There is no science facts in this video. Stephen Meyer and Tour are members of the Discovery Institute, which is an anti-science creationist cult. Anyone who denies evolution as do both Meyer and Tour has already resigned from the science community. Can you list a single science organization anywhere on the face of the earth, that rejects evolution? or denies the progress made in abiogenesis during the last 50 years. When Tour accused Jack Szostak (Nobel laureate) of lying, Tour had to publicly apologize and lost whatever dignity he had left. I will repost a comment responding to Tour's 13 part video of nonsense, (the very next comment). You have any comment on that?

@@georgbenad4436 *Homochirality* (what Tour and Meyer deny or just simply do not understand): “More recently, a number of theoretical and experimental investigations have helped to delineate models for how one enantiomer might have come to dominate over the other from what presumably was a racemic prebiotic world.” (enantiomer = each of a pair of molecules that are mirror images of each other; racemic = equal amount of left and right handed enantiomers of a chiral molecule) Creationists are correct to state that homochirality of biological molecules is a signature of life. Maybe, but not necessarily. The property of chirality-non-superimposable forms that are mirror images of one another, as are left and right hands-is manifest in both molecular and macroscopic objects (macroscopic = visible to the naked eye). Something like your left and right hand. *By claiming that life is not possible without molecular chirality, creationist think they have found a paradox or a roadblock to the origin of life through biochemistry.* Now we must face the fact that single chiral molecules in living organisms in nature exist almost exclusively as single enantiomers. Such biological molecules exist -exclusively left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars. Here is where dishonest creationists train runs off the tracks. So let us examine plausible mechanisms for the evolution of molecular homochirality as exemplified by the d-sugars and l-amino acids found in living organisms today. So how does “symmetry breaking occur”, where the balance of left and right handed molecules get upset? Evidence of small enantiomeric excesses in amino acids found in chondritic meteor deposits (Pizzarello 2006) (see Zahnle et al. 2010) allows the hypothesis that the initial imbalance is not of our world. This was an extra-terrestial source, however for a terrestrial source, we can reach across to physics: the discovery of parity violation (parity violation = and the elaboration of one of its consequences, that the two enantiomers have a very small energy difference between them, led many to consider the implications for biological homochirality (Quack 2002). The “parity violation” in interactions of the “electroweak” force, which is one of the four fundamental interactions (alongside the electromagnetic, gravitational and strong forces), and governs radioactive decay of atoms into more stable isotopes. The hypothesis was advanced by Chien-Shung Wu at Columbia University in the US alongside researchers at the Low Temperature Group of the US National Bureau of Standards, and later Richard Garwin, Leon Lederman and Marcel Weinrich, also at Columbia University, reported observations of this imparity in papers published in 1957. Kenso Soai and colleagues at the Science University of Tokyo in Japan in 1995 provided a possible mechanism for homochirality emerging from an initial imbalance. The “Soai reaction” provided a model for a chiral product that then catalysed the reaction to produce more molecules with the same chirality, so that an initial chirality imbalance would snowball. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2010 May; 2(5): a002147.doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a002147PMCID: PMC2857173PMID: 20452962The Origin of Biological HomochiralityDonna G. Blackmond I relied on and quoted from two main sources: Physics World: “Is parity violation a weak explanation for the homochirality of life? 28 Sep 2019” Anna Demming NCBI Resources: Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2010 May; 2 ‘The Origin of Biological Homochirality” By Donna G. Blackmond

Thank you for your service, Ling Ling.

Which god is that? There are more than 4,000 gods to chose from. What evidence makes your god real, and what evidence makes the other 4,000 gods false?