Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

James Tour gets to debate origin-of-life chemist!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    But how have I claimed he made conclusions he did not make?

    Blessings,
    Lee
    You claim his research makes more specific claims than a plausible model and work in progress. He is not claiming everything takes place in one step, because his work is incomplete.

    You need to cite Szostak that he is proposing everything is happening in one step and his work is complete as in all steps are known, and not Tour
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-04-2020, 05:17 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      You need to cite Szostak that he is proposing everything is happening in one step and his work is complete as in all steps are known, and not Tour
      The one step is in Szostak's diagram, and where have I said Szostak claimed all steps are known?

      Blessings,
      Lee
      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        The one step is in Szostak's diagram, and where have I said Szostak claimed all steps are known?

        Blessings,
        Lee
        Silly, the diagram is not Szostak's research. You need to cite Szostak specifically, and he described his research at this stage as developing a plausable model.

        Still waiting for you to cite Szostak and be specific.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #64
          Well, I'll let you have the last word, and leave it to the readers as to whether I have cited Szostak.

          Blessings,
          Lee
          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            Well, I'll let you have the last word, and leave it to the readers as to whether I have cited Szostak.

            Blessings,
            Lee
            You have not cited Szostak ethically, since he has written over 20 peer reviewed articles on the subject to develop his plausible model, and all you have done is refer to the an illustration or maybe a diagram.

            Regardless of whether you post again or not you have failed to actually cite his research directly nor properly. Like all your threads you run away without citing peer reviewed research to support your assertion sa based on a religious agenda.

            Remember Tour is not a biologist nor geneticist. He is a chemist and engineer.

            Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tour

            James M. Tour is an American nanotechnologist and both Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering, and Professor of Computer Science.

            © Copyright Original Source



            Still waiting . . .
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-06-2020, 07:59 PM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              Well, I think it is:

              Source: James Tour

              But all of the above is minor compared to Szostak’s showing that in a single step, heat and light can make a compound that resembles a dehydrated nucleotide .... There are so many steps involved in such a transformation.

              Source

              © Copyright Original Source

              So, most of this thread is just about some guy complaining part of one diagram needs some more detail? Seriously?

              Let's actually be serious: Tour, and thus by extension you, made the argument because he felt two things:
              1) Szostak was being misleading.
              2) Emphasizing the multiple reactions involved would make people who don't understand the research think this means things are less probable.
              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                So, most of this thread is just about some guy complaining part of one diagram needs some more detail? Seriously?
                That's been most of this thread, but Tour was taking an origin-of-life researcher to task in the debate for overstating his results.

                Tour, and thus by extension you, made the argument because he felt two things:
                1) Szostak was being misleading.
                Yes.

                2) Emphasizing the multiple reactions involved would make people who don't understand the research think this means things are less probable.
                Well, I think that multiple reactions do make the result less probable than if it was possible in one step.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  That's been most of this thread, but Tour was taking an origin-of-life researcher to task in the debate for overstating his results.
                  Looks like your back again like a broken record.

                  As referenced Tour is overstating Szostak's claims. Szostak claims involve only proposing a plausable model.

                  Yes.
                  No, Tour is being misleading to justify his agenda. He is not a biologist nor geneticist, nor has he published anything in the field, nor has he dialogued or worked with scientists in these disciplines.

                  Well, I think that multiple reactions do make the result less probable than if it was possible in one step.

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  Szostak did not claim they happened in one step, and you have failed to directly cite Szosak to justify your claim based on a religius agenda.

                  Still waiting . . .
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    For starters, i'm glad you've changed your argument and are now being honest about what this discussion was about. It'd be easier if you were more consistently honest about what you're saying.

                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    That's been most of this thread, but Tour was taking an origin-of-life researcher to task in the debate for overstating his results.
                    Ok, so let's look at why you think that....

                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    Well, I think that multiple reactions do make the result less probable than if it was possible in one step.
                    Then we can add chemistry to the long list of things you're incredibly ignorant about.

                    The reaction of octane with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and water takes dozens of steps, yet it happens every time you drive a car. Those dozens of steps are needed because multiple individual oxygen molecules have to be broken open, individual hydrogens pulled off the octane, intermediate carbon chains get broken apart, etc. And there's no particularly favored order of doing so, which means that if you react a population of molecules, you literally have thousands of individual steps taking place.

                    Yet that reaction is highly probable.

                    That's because what matters in chemical reactions is a combination of the activation energy and the total change in free energy. That's it. Your idea - more steps = less probable - would cause you to flunk even high school chemistry. You've been misled by Tour, entirely because he knew how to play on simplistic ignorance such as your own.


                    Doesn't it ever bother you that you keep saying such incredibly stupid things? Doesn't it ever cause you to rethink whether you're even capable of evaluating any of these arguments?

                    While i'm asking these sorts of questions: it's blatantly obvious that people who know these topics much better than you do are telling you that the people you keep listening to are misleading you. Does that ever cause you to rethink your blind faith in them?



                    EDITED TO ADD: you've also once again proven you're not even paying attention to your own arguments - Szostak was summarizing someone else's results in the figure that Tour is objecting to.
                    Last edited by TheLurch; 04-08-2020, 08:14 AM.
                    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      The one step is in Szostak's diagram, and where have I said Szostak claimed all steps are known?

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      You're claiming Szostak over stated the claims of his research without any citations of Szostak's research, just a diagram. Is that all?

                      Szostak did not claim all steps were known. The diagram does not represent the conclusions of Szostak;s research. It just represents a diagram of part of his plausible model.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-08-2020, 01:02 PM.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                        The reaction of octane with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and water takes dozens of steps, yet it happens every time you drive a car. Those dozens of steps are needed because multiple individual oxygen molecules have to be broken open, individual hydrogens pulled off the octane, intermediate carbon chains get broken apart, etc. And there's no particularly favored order of doing so, which means that if you react a population of molecules, you literally have thousands of individual steps taking place.

                        Yet that reaction is highly probable.
                        Yet I note that heat and UV light are needed for this reaction chain, so it's not all downhill.

                        EDITED TO ADD: you've also once again proven you're not even paying attention to your own arguments - Szostak was summarizing someone else's results in the figure that Tour is objecting to.
                        That's fine, the objection is that the diagram is misleading.

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          You're claiming Szostak over stated the claims of his research without any citations of Szostak's research, just a diagram. Is that all?
                          No, I brought up the papers, one by Szostak referencing another paper describing the reaction.

                          Szostak did not claim all steps were known. The diagram does not represent the conclusions of Szostak;s research. It just represents a diagram of part of his plausible model.
                          But all the steps for this reaction chain are indeed known, they're just not included in the diagram.

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            No, I brought up the papers, one by Szostak referencing another paper describing the reaction.


                            But all the steps for this reaction chain are indeed known, they're just not included in the diagram.

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            Not clear so far you have not cited Szostak's work specifically, in detail and your objections. The diagram is not meaning ful.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              Yet I note that heat and UV light are needed for this reaction chain, so it's not all downhill.
                              And burning octane requires a spark. So what?
                              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                                And burning octane requires a spark. So what?
                                I notice you're not in any way acknowledging the fact that you seem to not understand basic chemistry. What's your background in that topic?
                                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 12:15 PM
                                0 responses
                                12 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Catholicity, 11-28-2023, 11:14 AM
                                57 responses
                                421 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 11-17-2023, 10:35 PM
                                92 responses
                                546 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Diogenes  
                                Working...
                                X