A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there's no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

March 6, 2014 Posted by vjtorley under Intelligent Design


Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", which read: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

On Professor Tour's Website, there's a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine - VJT):


Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, "The emperor has no clothes!"?

...I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? ... Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

In a more recent talk, entitled, Nanotech and Jesus Christ, given on 1 November 2012 at Georgia Tech, Professor Tour went further, and declared that no scientist that he has spoken to understands macroevolution - and that includes Nobel Prize winners! Here's what he said when a student in the audience asked him about evolution:


... I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don't just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature's tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

I don't understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, "I don't understand this"? Is that all right? I know that there's a lot of people out there that don't understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don't understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.

Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science - with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public - because it's a scary thing, if you say what I just said - I say, "Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?" Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go "Uh-uh. Nope." These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I've sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, "Do you understand this?" And if they're afraid to say "Yes," they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can't sincerely do it.

I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, "Let me ask you something. You're a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?" We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, "Isn't it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can't go out there and talk about this?"

If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I'm not going to try to change you - not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have.

But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don't understand. And I said, "I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won't argue with you until I don't understand something - I will ask you to clarify. But you can't wave by and say, "This enzyme does that." You've got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.

The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they challenged the Atheist Society, "Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy, and talk to him." Nobody has come! Now remember, because I'm just going to ask, when I stop understanding what you're talking about, I will ask. So I sincerely want to know. I would like to believe it. But I just can't.

Now, I understand microevolution, I really do. We do this all the time in the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time - not just one line - concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment ... this is very hard to fathom.

I was in Israel not too long ago, talking with a bio-engineer, and [he was] describing to me the ear, and he was studying the different changes in the modulus of the ear, and I said, "How does this come about?" And he says, "Oh, Jim, you know, we all believe in evolution, but we have no idea how it happened." Now there's a good Jewish professor for you. I mean, that's what it is. So that's where I am. Have I answered the question? (52:00 to 56:44)

Professor Tour's online talk is absolutely fascinating as well as being deeply moving on a personal level, and I would strongly urge readers to listen to his talk in its entirety - including the questions after the talk. You won't regret it, I promise you. One interesting little gem of information which I'll reveal is that it was Professor Tour who was largely instrumental in getting Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley, winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, to reject Darwinian evolution and accept Old Earth creationism, shortly before he died in 2005. It was Tour who persuaded Smalley to delve into the question of origins. After reading the books "Origins of Life" and "Who Was Adam?", written by Dr. Hugh Ross (an astrophysicist) and Dr. Fazale Rana (a biochemist).. Dr. Smalley explained his change of heart as follows:


Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading "Origins of Life", with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, "Who Was Adam?", is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death.

Strong words indeed, for a Nobel scientist. Readers can find out more about Professor Richard Smalley's change of views here.

Why should we believe macroevolution, if nobody understands it?

Now that Professor Tour has informed the world that even Nobel Prize-winning scientists privately admit that they don't understand macroevolution, a layperson is surely entitled to ask: "Well, if even they don't understand it, then why should we believe it? How can we possibly be obliged to believe in a theory which nobody understands?"

That's a good question. And it's no use for Darwinists to trot out the standard "party line" that "even if we don't yet understand how it happened, we still have enough evidence to infer that it happened." At the very most, all that the current scientific evidence could establish is the common descent of living organisms. But that's not macroevolution. Macroevolution requires more than a common ancestry for living organisms: it requires a natural mechanism which can generate the diversity of life-forms we see on Earth today from a common stock, without the need for any direction by an Intelligent Agent. But the mechanism is precisely what we don't have evidence for. So the question remains: why should we believe in macroevolution?

The decline of academic freedom

Given the massive uncertainty about the "how" of macroevolution among scientists working in the field, you might think that a wide variety of views would be tolerated in the scientific arena - including the view that there is no such process as macroevolution. However, you would be sadly mistaken. As Professor Tour notes in his online article on evolution and creation, an alarming academic trend has emerged in recent years: a growing intolerance of dissent from Darwinism. This trend is so pronounced that Professor Tour now advises his students not to voice their doubts about Darwinism in public, if they want a successful career:


In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys...

But my recent advice to my graduate students has been direct and revealing: If you disagree with Darwinian Theory, keep it to yourselves if you value your careers, unless, of course, you're one of those champions for proclamation; I know that that fire exists in some, so be ready for lead-ridden limbs. But if the scientific community has taken these shots at senior faculty, it will not be comfortable for the young non-conformist. When the power-holders permit no contrary discussion, can a vibrant academy be maintained? Is there a University (unity in diversity)? For the United States, I pray that the scientific community and the National Academy in particular will investigate the disenfranchisement that is manifest upon some of their own, and thereby address the inequity.

It remains to be seen if other countries will allow their young scientists to think freely about the origin of life, and of the various species of organisms that we find on Earth today. What I will say, though, is that countries which restrict academic freedom will eventually be overtaken by countries which allow it to prosper. There is still time for America and Europe to throw off the dead hand of Darwinism in academic circles, and let their young people breathe the unaccustomed air of free speech once again.

(UPDATE: Here's a link to my follow-up post, Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details. It amply refutes the simplistic charge, made by some skeptics, that Professor Tour was conflating macroevolution with the question of the origin of life.)

Source and all of the hot links (too many to install)


-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. - Professor James M Tour

http://www.jmtour.com/personal...80%9Cscience%E2%80%9D/

-------------------------
I was right.

"You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context." Professor James M Tour


-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

Thank you so very much, Cole.

FK, these articles are so tiring, not necessarily from you, so forgive my vehemence, but in general.  Congratulations, the opinion of one scientist, speaking outside of his specialty, obviously negates the opinion of HUNDREDS of others.  Please.  You want an opinion on a scientific topic, speak with a specialist, in this case, a Biologist, specifically an Evolutionary Biologist.  Speaking outside your specialty?  Frowned upon in the scientific community.  You can have an opinion of course, but that doesn't make you right.  The VAST majority of the scientific community no longer feels the need to even DISCUSS whether or not Evolution by means of Natural Selection is valid model.  This is one area where you will not out-debate me, my friend, hate to say it.  I would wager that you haven't spent even a small FRACTION of the amount of time or money that I've invested into the exploration of this topic.  I wouldn't be on this forum, or anywhere else espousing such strong opinions on the matter without having done so.

This guy's opinions on the matter are manifestly oversimplified and platitudinous.  Being a scientist does not make you an authority in all branches of science, and his logical failures in this arena are clear enough.

 

 "I share Pascal’s frustration. Wouldn’t it have been wonderful if, when scientists had obtained the first molecular resolution images of human DNA, it had self-assembled (a thermodynamic process) into the Hebrew script to say, “The God of Heaven and Earth was here.”?? But it did not, and I suppose that the wonder would have elicited no love from the skeptic anyway. Therefore, God seems to have set nature as a clue, not a solution, to keep us yearning for him."

'I can't explain it, so clearly it's a mystery, and obviously must be God'.  This is the most un-scientific approach available, and it's startling that more than one scientist embraces it on the matter at hand.  Scary what childhood brainwashing can accomplish.  But then, even scientists are human after all, I suppose.  

You want to prove a god, you need evidence.  So far there is pretty much none at all.  The same goes for Evolution by Natural Selection, except for that, there is a veritable MOUNTAIN of evidence, some people have just decided that they want every single hole filled before they can accept it.  That's fine.  So for every dinosaur that doesn't have a 100% complete skeleton available, we'll just deny they ever existed at all, because we don't have ALL of the evidence.  That makes sense, right?

He fully supports micro-evolution, but balks at the thought of macro-evolution?  Well sir, it's apparent that you have very little imagination.  If you can't extrapolate macro-evolution from micro-evolution, I'm afraid that your intellectual faculties are sadly limited.  Go ahead and pull the nonsense about the eye.  And the moment you do, you'll be disqualified, as those of us who understand the conversation are intimately aware that they eye has evolved independently NUMEROUS times.  Yes, on any such basis, you are EXCUSED.

You want to debate FK, I'm happy to do so.  I ceded ground to you on the climate debate, but you've caught me in my area of expertise here.  You'll have a ferocious battle ahead of you if you want to argue this one.

Evolution is just a theory.  Like Gravity.  Try testing that one first.

 

-------------------------

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

"Human decency is not derived from religion, it precedes it."

"If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I'm still waiting to hear their point."

-Christopher Hitchens

-------------------------

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

"Human decency is not derived from religion, it precedes it."

"If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I'm still waiting to hear their point."

-Christopher Hitchens

Wow!

Just WOW!

First off....he's NOT speaking outside of his specialty. He is wanting someone...ANYONE to teach him chemically, how macroevolution could have happened.

He wants ANY "Evolutionary Biologist"...ANY scientist, ANY molecular biologist to explain the chemical makeup of macroevolution.

So do I!

Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution?

Do you, Apebrains?

If you are sooooooooo smart...as you claim you are....lets hear it!

I want your ever so intelligent explanation on how you get from one SPECIES to another chemically...as in how do you change those molecules.

I don't want to prove God....I want you to prove that you can get chemically from one species to another!

We will ALL be waiting Mr. Brilliant!

You will note that I have asked these very questions long ago on this very forum.

You can go back and PULL IT UP!

I didn't get BUBKUS back then other than I should just accept the scientific consensus that macroevolution happens (just like you just tried to pull!!!!!)...and the 'scientists' know how!

Well....SPLAIN it to me!

I don't want your assurance that it just happens!

I want a detailed explanation of the process!

Details...moron...details!

-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

Edited: 03/14/2014 at 02:09 AM by Fish Killer

I have to be honest, under normal circumstances, if you were to communicate in that fashion with me in real life, it would invariably result in a strike in the face or, at the very least, a terminated discussion.  Since this is neither a vis-à-vis encounter, and since I'm also intimately familiar with the boldness exhibited by so-called 'keyboard ninjas' such as yourself, I'll forego a more volatile reaction (the type that you tend to draw from so many on the forum by speaking as you do to them), and instead, search for my inner Gandhi and try to be patient with you.  Additionally, I really shouldn't bother, since the aforementioned meme well summarizes the reaction that I expect.  I work ahead only in the hopes that you may actually recant (yeah, I know), or that someone else may consider something they hadn't before.  That said, let's press on.

How much do you know about Genetics, FishKiller (I wish I knew your actual name, because it seems insipid calling you that)?  How much do you know about DNA and RNA?  How much do you know about Genetic Mutation?  How much do you know about the Human Genome, and its nucleotides?  How much do you know about bacterial evolution?  How much do you know about the chemical makeup of the DNA macromolecule?  And parenthetically, how much do you....well, not really know, but understand Quantum Theory?  The last one is not necessarily relavent, but it will hopefully aid me in making a point.

I ask these questions, because when you say, "Explain it to me," I don't think you're understanding the gravity of your request.  There are literaly dozens, probably hundreds of BOOKS written on the subject, and to just throw it into laymans terms on a forum page is the same sort of gross oversimplification that leads to misunderstandings.

Have you ever bothered to read "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection"?  It is a literal tome.  But if you aren't even willing to read that, and yet you're still double quick to dismiss its contents, then I have a hard time taking your request seriously.  Your asking me to put in a massive amount of effort to teach you something that you are, in all likelihood, just going to call bollocks on, and wander off thinking exactly what you did before entering the conversation.  I am not for a moment evading your request, in fact, my antecedent paragraph was really all questions that I posed to you that will give me a viable starting point for an explanation.  

My point there is simply to say, please don't go around asking very heavy questions, and demanding answers if you don't even want to hear (or listen to) the answer to begin with.  You're being very rude, and wasting people's time.  Especially since you could very easily find the answers yourself, you're just unwilling, or unmotivated.

Evolution is a beautifully, even poetically simple answer to a very, very complex problem, but just because the final resulting concept is simple, doesn't mean that the explanation for how the theory works at the lowest levels, or the collection of evidence to support said explanations - that is to say, the science - is or was simple at all.

 

-------------------------

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

"Human decency is not derived from religion, it precedes it."

"If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I'm still waiting to hear their point."

-Christopher Hitchens

Two theories, equally old and equally poorly understood,

gravitation and evolution,

but

nobody ever wants to discuss the theory of gravitation?

-------------------------
add a signature since I'm here in profile anyway

 

I don't know that they're really that poorly understood. 

There is always the preponderant understanding that we don't actually "KNOW" anything, but to embrace that style of thinking, we'd be leaving science and branching into philosophy, so that's unnecessary here.

What's important, in most cases, is that theories work mathematically, and while Newtonian physics may be antiquated, the math still checks out.

I think it's important to remember that we're simply a diminutive, insignificant, and relatively simple-minded creature trying to understand a very complicated reality.  Most of these things are not intuitive to us (I emphasize the word because it is important), but that doesn't mean that we cannot implement our intellectual tools to make these things understandable, even with our admittedly limited faculties.

 

And parenthetically, they're not really equally old.  Gravity is a substantially older theory.  There was an iteration of 'gravity' that existed in the 12th century, though Newton refined it as the foundation for 'classical physics' in the 17th century.  Evolution by means of Natural Selection didn't actually arise until roughly midway through the 19th century.

I know that wasn't central to your point, but I still felt that it required mention.

-------------------------

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

"Human decency is not derived from religion, it precedes it."

"If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I'm still waiting to hear their point."

-Christopher Hitchens

You don't need to worry about whether I will understand your bull ca-ca.

You need to explain it to the chemist that wrote the article!

Professor James M. Tour.

You know...the man that knows way more than you ever will about chemistry.

My bet is that with all that feces that you wrote you actually knew nothing on the subject and that he would laugh at you!

"Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", which read: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

One other thing....I would suggest that you start by looking up the definition of both terms (micro and macro) evolution. They arenot the same due to the fact that they refer to different time scales. What a laugh you are!~

"Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population." Wikipedia

-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

Edited: 03/16/2014 at 04:52 PM by Fish Killer

You are actually attempting to arguing biological evolution?

Don't you think you already look dumb enough?

-------------------------
I was right.

Nope...I have you for that!

Moron!

-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

 

You're right, he does make you look dumb.

If you don't realize that you've been destroyed on this argument already, then I worry there's no hope for you.  Not that that comes as a surprise to anyone here....

And if you need me to explain it to your scientist friend, send him on over.  

Macro and micro are discussing the same phenomenon at a different level of scale.  They are still driven by the exact same chemical/biological/genetic processes.

I gave you a nice intro video that would help you understand.  I'm willing to bet my balls that you didn't even click on it.

And what the hell do nanocars and electronics have to do with biology?  Again, outside of his specialty. 

 

The craziest thing is how badly you've already lost this debate, and how you're still arguing about it.  This is why so many people have you on ignore.  You're hopeless.  Look up the definition of that word.

 

When you've read "On The Origin Of Species" and "The Selfish Gene," then I'll reconsider your opinions.  I'm still doubtful at this point that you've ever read a science book in your entire life.

 

 

 

Honestly.  Seriously.  If I thought that there was any chance that you could listen to and learn from what I had to say, I'd love to sit you down over a beer and present ALL of this information to you in a calm, friendly manner.  I'd love to explain the workings of all of this to you, not as a superior, but as a peer.  I'm sure there are things I could learn from you as well.  I'm sure there's a great many things on which you have expertise that I do not.  I just don't believe you're actually interested in the answers to your questions, you just like to pose them because you know it aggravates so many of us.

If this isn't true, however, please, don't hesitate to extend your hand to meet mine.  In case you haven't noticed, I've extended it to you at least a half dozen times...

-------------------------

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

"Human decency is not derived from religion, it precedes it."

"If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I'm still waiting to hear their point."

-Christopher Hitchens

Listen buttwipe...you haven't 'splained' anything!

Nothing!

Nada!

You failed!

James M. Tour wants to take YOU (and IQ89) to lunch....call him and SET IT UP!

I can't wait to hear the details of YOUR lunch with him and all of the molecular conversations that you have had with him about macroevolution.

You have no chemistry background cause if you did you would have shut up.

FOOL!

-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

I'd love to talk with him about evolution, thought it would be a one-sided conversation with him talking and me listening.

Set it up.

-------------------------
I was right.

Watch Cosmos.

-------------------------

A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

YOU set it up!

That's YOUR job...not mine!

Fool!

Oh...and he wants YOU to 'splain' how you think macroevolution can be done molecularly...as in where's YOUR proof.

:-0



-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

Alien bio-engineering makes more sense to me than a God floating about with a paintbrush.



-------------------------
I was right.

I second this.  It could be a group luncheon.

-------------------------

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

"Human decency is not derived from religion, it precedes it."

"If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I'm still waiting to hear their point."

-Christopher Hitchens

The only evidence I'm seeing here is that FK does not understand the theory of evolution in any form or fashion.  Nor will he read any suggested literature.  Nor will he watch any video.  Nor does he wish to remain anything but ignorant, angry, and malignant.

And he is completely oblivious to friendly gestures.

One need only enter this forum, should they wish to lose their faith in humanity.

-------------------------

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

"Human decency is not derived from religion, it precedes it."

"If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I'm still waiting to hear their point."

-Christopher Hitchens

"Where does Jim Tour stand on the evolution vs. creation debate? I do have scientific problems understanding macroevolution as it is usually presented. I simply can not accept it as unreservedly as many of my scientist colleagues do, although I sincerely respect them as scientists. Some of them seem to have little trouble embracing many of evolution's proposals based upon (or in spite of) archeological, mathematical, biochemical and astrophysical suggestions and evidence, and yet few are experts in all of those areas, or even just two of them. Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, "The emperor has no clothes!"?" Professor James M Tour


-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

Edited: 03/13/2014 at 07:17 PM by Fish Killer

"Furthermore, when I, a non-conformist, ask proponents for clarification, they get flustered in public and confessional in private wherein they sheepishly confess that they really don't understand either. Well, that is all I am saying: I do not understand. But I am saying it publicly as opposed to privately. Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me. Lunch will be my treat. Until then, I will maintain that no chemist understands, hence we are collectively bewildered. And I have not even addressed origin of first life issues. For me, that is even more scientifically mysterious than evolution. Darwin never addressed origin of life, and I can see why he did not; he was far too smart for that. Present day scientists that expose their thoughts on this become ever so timid when they talk with me privately. I simply can not understand the source of their confidence when addressing their positions publicly." Professor James M Tour


-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

Edited: 03/13/2014 at 07:17 PM by Fish Killer

"Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution?" Professor James M Tour

Do you, IQ89?

If you claim that you do...please explain it to us all!


-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

We have finally gotten the DNA thing down, but science is far from over.

-------------------------
I was right.

So he's not an expert in the field, and posts asking for answer to the question on a religious (intelligent design) forum.
HE IS of course he's unlikely to get an answer there, he should post it to scientists, not religionists.


-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

"Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please don't ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context."

Tour's website

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

 

THANK YOU.  WG, you're a legend.  I wish I had found that quote.

NAIL IN THE COFFIN buddy.

Game.  Set.  Match.

-------------------------

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

"Human decency is not derived from religion, it precedes it."

"If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I'm still waiting to hear their point."

-Christopher Hitchens

LOL, FK takes the request to quote in-context and pastes it out of context.

Holy shit, literally




Edited: 03/17/2014 at 11:30 AM by 3rdworldlover

 

Thank you.

There are a diminutive handful of scientists like this who are the secular patron saints of the theologian (and theistic layman) crowd.  They offer a voice of doubt, no matter how ill-conceived, within the circle of their opposition, and the proselytizing masses leap at the opportunity to cite their words.

 

-------------------------

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

"Human decency is not derived from religion, it precedes it."

"If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I'm still waiting to hear their point."

-Christopher Hitchens

BTW, perhaps the reason why no scientist has yet described to him a chemical difference between "micro evolution: and "macro evolution" is that there is none, the two are the same process, differing only in time and distance.
You will only find them treated differently (or even the terms used) in religious circles.

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

Edited: 03/14/2014 at 11:36 AM by WG

Absolutely.

If you want to understand it on a "chemical level" then you're going to have to understand how genetic mutation affects the DNA macromolecule at the chemical level.  It's really not as complicated to understand as you might imagine.  You just have to understand that, from a chemist's perspective, these are very complicated molecules that you're dealing with.

Here's a wonderful video to help anyone curious with understanding this process:

http://youtu.be/efstlgoynlk

-------------------------

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

"Human decency is not derived from religion, it precedes it."

"If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I'm still waiting to hear their point."

-Christopher Hitchens

Good textbook (I doubt that anyone buys the hardbound version).

"Relentless Evolution draws on studies of all the major forms of life-from microbes that evolve in microcosms within a few weeks to plants and animals that sometimes evolve in detectable ways within a few decades. It shows evolution not as a slow and stately process, but rather as a continual and sometimes frenetic process that favors yet more evolutionary change."

There is no doubt, except the religious sort, that earth is old and that "macroevolution" is a historic fact.  The rocks and the fossil record matter.

People want complete and total explanations for complex phenomena. That is typically not how science nor scientists work.

-------------------------
Bald Brother

"Surfing is prayer of a high order, the sea a beautiful church, the wave a silent sermon"
Tom Blake

29+ evidences of Macroevolution. 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Exceprt:

"No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data. "

 

Along the lines of science vs. stupidity, the first experimental confirmation of gravity waves was announced today, which supports the big bang theory.

Which doesn't line up with Genesis.

-------------------------

A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Not one single piece of that crap explains how you molecularly (chemically) achieve macroevolution.

Fail!



-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

Part one: http://releasingthetruth.wordp...2013/06/15/dev/


Part two: http://releasingthetruth.wordp....com/2013/06/15/dev2/

MORON!


-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

This experiment on personal attacks has confirmed the theory.

-------------------------

A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

"Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

In a more recent talk, entitled, Nanotech and Jesus Christ, given on 1 November 2012 at Georgia Tech, Professor Tour went further, and declared that no scientist that he has spoken to understands macroevolution - and that includes Nobel Prize winners! Here's what he said when a student in the audience asked him about evolution:


... I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don't just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature's tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

I don't understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, "I don't understand this"? Is that all right? I know that there's a lot of people out there that don't understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don't understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual." James M. Tour

-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

evolution is the paintbrush.

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

Could be WG, and "God" could be an older and wiser version of us.

-------------------------
I was right.

Or 'God' could be energy itself.  Or the Higgs Boson.  Or Quantum Physics.  Or any other number of metaphors.  

Or we could just stop using the word and admit our own ignorance.  A terrifying prospect, I know.

-------------------------

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

"Human decency is not derived from religion, it precedes it."

"If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I'm still waiting to hear their point."

-Christopher Hitchens

I understand it just fine....

It's CRAP!

-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

speaking of blocking people, Where would I find such an option?

-------------------------
"Either way, ankle-shin or waist-chest - call it want you want.
I call it, I was happy." Sunrisesurfer

dashboard link at top of page.

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill