James Tour accuses origin of life researchers of lying

I don’t know that I would put it exactly that way. Generating an initial bias (enantiomeric excess) is simple enough, through random sampling, but it’s the amplification of that excess to the point where it get’s “frozen”, as you put it, that’s the trick.

I’m not saying it’s a trivial problem (people have been working on it for decades) but the thing I do want to explicitly point out ( and Tour and every synthetic organic chemist who’s ever done chiral synthesis knows) that reactions with chiral products can be “directed” using chiral reactants or catalysts. it’s not just a simple combinatorial 50/50 chance at each chiral center. So any math based on that (like the chance of n chiral centers all being the same handedness is 1/n^2) is just not useful.

5 Likes

Homohirality is an issue no doubt, it certainly makes things more difficult. I’m not a synthetic chemist nor an OOL researcher, but my graduate work involved the photochemistry of chiral molecular machines, so I have some relevant knowledge. This paper (recommended to me by people on this forum) is a really good start at looking at possible ways we could have gotten homochirality.

I would also point out, I have a lot of respect for Jim Tour and the work he’s done. One of the reasons I got into nanomachinery was his NanoKids, which I consider an epitome of “because it’s fun … and we can” science that I enjoy. I remember my graduate classmates just being in awe of what Tours group was producing. He is a very accomplished scientist.

I watched the whole video, and when Tour got to “they’re lying to you!” bits I cringed. It’s over the top, it’s theatrical, but I didn’t think much about it. It just seemed like hyperbole. Having said that, after looking at the Szostak “article”, I have to say, I really think Jim is wrong here, and it wouldn’t have flown at a scientific conference. Perhaps he played to his audience too much.

Now, I generally like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I’ve seen some odd stuff. I once saw a rather famous physical chemist at a national meeting give a presentation where he got to a slide, looked at it for a few seconds, and said something to the effect of “I have no idea why my grad student put that in there”. Not only was he saying he hadn’t bothered to prepare his own slides, he hadn’t apparently even reviewed the presentation before standing up in a room full of his peers. My opinion of him went down several notches. That’s how I’m presently feeling about Tour. Do I think he’s a phony or completely “sold out”, no. Do I wish he stuck to what he knows a bit more closely, or at least use tentative language instead of “they’re lying to you!”, absolutely.

10 Likes

At about 27 minutes into his rant, James Tour goes off on the “fact” that amino acids cannot spontaneously polymerize. (A repeated CHON molecule is a “mer” and a string of them is a polymer).

It turns out he is unwittingly repeating a fraud I was first interested in nearly 20 years ago. The creationist chemist Jonathan Sarfati of the original Answers in Genesis crowd wrote that an experimental result was a fake.

I wrote a response for the Australian webpage opposing the “Answers in Genesis” called “No Answers in Genesis.”
"Boiled Creationist with a Side of Hexiglycine"

Much more results are available today. For examples;

Jayanta Nanda, et al 2017 “Emergence of native peptide sequences in prebiotic replication networks” Nature Communications volume 8, Article number: 434 (2017)

Gibard, Clémentine et al 2017 “Phosphorylation, oligomerization and self-assembly in water under potential prebiotic conditions” Nature Chemistry 2017/11/06/online http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nchem.2878

From their abstract;
“Here, we demonstrate that diamidophosphate (DAP)—a plausible prebiotic agent produced from trimetaphosphate—efficiently (amido)phosphorylates a wide variety of (pre)biological building blocks (nucleosides/tides, amino acids and lipid precursors) under aqueous (solution/paste) conditions, without the need for a condensing agent. Significantly, higher-order structures (oligonucleotides, peptides and liposomes) are formed under the same phosphorylation reaction conditions. This plausible prebiotic phosphorylation process under similar reaction conditions could enable the systems chemistry of the three classes of (pre)biologically relevant molecules and their oligomers, in a single-pot aqueous environment.”

Neme, R., Amador, C., Yildirim, B., McConnell, E. and Tautz, D., 2017 “Random sequences are an abundant source of bioactive RNAs or peptides” Nature ecology & evolution, 1(6), p.0127.

This is not all that new. Here are 2 early examples;

Somporn Saetia, Klaus R. Liedl, Artur H. Eder and Bernd M. Rode 1993 “Evaporation cycle experiments — A simulation of salt-induced peptide synthesis under possible prebiotic conditions” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, Volume 23, Number 3, 1993 167-176, DOI: 10.1007/BF01581836

Yuttana Suwannachot and Bernd M. Rode 1999 “Mutual Amino Acid Catalysis in Salt-Induced Peptide Formation Supports this Mechanism’s Role in Prebiotic Peptide Evolution” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres Volume 29, Number 5, 463-471

4 Likes

I like them. I didn’t bother with the orientation. You did, and it is a lot better.

:wave:

I added them with a link to your blog.

Wow, Peter. You’re really twisting yourself into pretzels trying to avoid admitting the obvious. What a sorry spectacle.

If Tour had accused Szostak of having three heads, you’d find away to argue this was true.

2 Likes

So you don’t mind lying and slander if it is done by your friends against others who do not share your religious beliefs. Personally, I have no idea of what, if any, faith Jack Szostak has.

Forget, Szostak. How can you endorse James Tour lying to that crowd of Christians?

I think this is why I stopped posting here the last time.

3 Likes

Actually, James Tour’s conversion experience was when he was still a student. He has a “personal witness” webpage describing his conversion to “Jews for Jesus” or as their movement now likes to be called “Messianic Jews.” The Disco’tute is a much more recent affiliation.

What struck me was more interesting is that the Disco’tute is abandoning their pretense that they are scientific, or not mere biblical creationists. This was of course obvious to anyone who studied their organization, and the religious biases of their principal “fellows.”

They even admitted it at rare times of honesty.

Phillip Johnson, the “Godfather of ID creationism”

“My colleagues and I speak of “theistic realism” – or sometimes, “mere creation” --as the defining concept of our movement. This [Intelligent Design] means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology.” 1996, “Starting a Conversation about Evolution” ARN Starting a Conversation about Evolution: Johnson, Phillip

“The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ and ‘In the beginning God created.’ Establishing that point isn’t enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message.” Foreword to “Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science” (2000).

“Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.” American Family Radio (10 January 2003)

3 Likes

Do not be silly @Gary_Hurd. At no point in this whole conversation have I expressed any endorsement of Dr. Tour’s claims. Don’t pretend I have. I do not think he should have said that Sostak is lying, as I see no indication that Sostak is lying.

And yet you are back. Make sure that you do not object to imagined offenses. I did not endorse Tour’s claim that Sostak lied. Period.

4 Likes

These are distinct movements. Messiantic Jews usually do not like Jews for Jesus.

Yes, the atheists here are going after him. I think it substantially undermines their point, making them seem less trustworthy. In their defense, in the same way you feel defensive of Tour, they feel defensive of Sostack. No one makes progress when adrenaline flows.

Did you not write this?

That does not defend Tour.

That just empathizes that it is hard to know who to trust when people make it personal. I go on to explain that you are legitimately defensive of Sostack, so he should have some empathy for you, and let his adrenaline die down before responding.

There is no way to interpret this as a defense of Tour’s comments.

1 Like

It really does look like a deflection though; “Hey don’t look at what Tour did, look at those atheists who are attacking him, because they’re atheists. It really makes them look unbelievable!”.

In this case it’s not a matter of it being hard who to trust; we know Tour was completely wrong. This is a matter of public record. The atheists here are demonstrably telling the truth. There is absolutely no reason to cast doubt on their trustworthiness.

The atheists here criticizing Tour are not doing so because they feel defensive of Sostack, and not because they are making it personal. They are criticizing Tour because his actions are unethical. This makes them more trustworthy, not less trustworthy.

What makes people look less trustworthy, is either defending Tours, or commenting on his actions in a way which carefully avoids criticizing him, or plays down the unethical nature of his actions, or tries to shift the focus to someone or something else, or casts aspersions on people criticizing him.

4 Likes

You guys couldn’t recognize diplomacy if it hit you over the head :smile:. Though my contributions are sparse here, my position is abundantly clear. If you just want the catharsis of railing against your opponents, well that seems very empty. You could actually try and win them over.

2 Likes

Is it only atheists criticizing Tour? @swamidass has criticized him. His criticisms have been rather more measured and mild than, say, mine. But that’s just how he is.

5 Likes

We recognize diplomacy. We know what you’re doing. You’ve used the same approach with ID for months. We understand you want to bend over backwards to do everything possible to appear diplomatic. However this does not require you to cast aspersions on the trustworthiness of others.

Telling people here that they’re just railing against their opponents, especially when those you’re criticizing have spent months patiently providing explanations for people who keep asking the same questions, or who keep responding to them with cheap retorts, isn’t every diplomatic. Gary is right to tell you that your pattern of behavior in this regard diminishes the good will you have with members of this forum.

No. I didn’t say it was only atheists criticizing Tour.

2 Likes

I cannot imagine standing in front of a crowd of cheering, laughing people and calling out “PETER IS LYING TO YOU!”, and doing it just once would not somehow make it ok.

I am highly sympathetic to Tour’s arguments. This might call some negative attention to me, but based on the current evidence I have seen (I admit that I am not an avid reader in OOL research), I think the divine creation of the first cells is a better explanation. I reserve the right to change my mind as this research progresses, but that’s the way I see it. I am not criticizing Tour for his opinions, since I share most of them, but I am definitely criticizing him for the way he conducted himself in that video. I attended a talk of his this past December (and talked about it here) in front of a VERY different audience and his behavior was quite different for these two talks.

10 Likes

I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t have a problem with Tour having similar views.

My problem with Tour, is when he misrepresents what OOL researchers are saying.

5 Likes

I do not call Tour a liar out of any personal, political, or religious bias.

He is a liar because he lies. I have documented him lying. I gave detailed sources. Some whined that I posted too many scientific citations. I simply listed some of the lies Tour told, and some people demanded citations.

Prof. Swamidass justified Tour lying because the nasty Atheists are mean to his friend.

If you look in the mirror, ask “Did I dismiss lying because I have a personal relationship, and he is supposedly of my faith?”

I retired, but I never as a scientist made light of any falsification of facts from a personal relationship.

3 Likes

Um…no. Not what I did.

I did not dismiss what he did.

Once again, not what I did.

——

Why make stuff up about me?

This topic was automatically closed after 4 hours. New replies are no longer allowed.