# James Tour and his 60-day challenge

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Science\
**Created:** [December 17, 2025, 12:01am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564 "2025-12-17T00:01:07Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 12

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 7:59pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/222 "2026-01-18T19:59:43Z")

</div>

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > But that has nothing to do with Tour’s challenge, it’s not about cells evolving, it’s about whether life can be created in the lab.
> 
> Then the challenge really isn’t about the productivity of abiogenesis research.

If you can’t create an interactome that works in the lab, then it’s virtually certain that no natural process can do this.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > > [@Mercer](#):
> > >
> > > Why didn’t Axe do that?
> > 
> > I continue to point out that he did, his decision was “functional, or non-functional”.
> 
> Why didn’t Axe measure activity? You know that’s the question.

Because saying “I measured a continuous variable, and I don’t have any conclusion” is not going to be a good result.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/223 "2026-01-18T20:00:48Z")

</div>

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > What is silly is the claim that hydrothermal vents are a good place for life to emerge! “Alkaline hydrothermal vents are among the most plausible environments for the emergence of life”. Not so.
> 
> How much have you looked into the evidence?

Well, I listened to an expert talk about this, and I understood what he was saying fairly well. One basic problem is that complex molecules go to pieces in the kind of temperatures found in hydrothermal vents.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Ed Pelzer talks with James Tour
> 
> Given my level of expertise and familiarity with the primary literature, why, precisely, should I care at all what Ed Pelzer and Tour think about anything pertaining to abiogenesis?

Because Pelzer knows the field, hydrothermal vents were in his area. And Tour is well versed in creating molecules, I suggest you address Pelzer and Tour’s comments directly, if you also are an expert.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> And given your lack of expertise and complete unfamiliarity with the primary literature, why should you?

Because their points are fairly accessible, such as Tour saying for years that the formose reaction is not a good way to make sugars on early earth, and OOL researchers have confirmed this now. Such as Tour pointing out the homochirality is no longer optional in abiogenesis scenarios. And so on…

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > So we must not take a simpler approach, when we see that would be adequate?
> 
> Obviously it wasn’t adequate, as Axe’s extrapolation is the greatest outlier.

No comprendo, what do you mean by “Axe’s extrapolation”? The objection was that a more complex approach was better for some reason, which reason was not made clear. The reviewers obviously thought Axe’s simpler approach was adequate.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/224 "2026-01-18T20:17:50Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Tour says that’s how he got motivated to point out that the claims were false! He read the papers, and saw that what they were claiming was not what they were doing. He goes through some of the papers in some of his videos, and remarks that ordinary people are not going to be able to do this, but he can, and does.

And here, again, is an example of your intellectual dishonesty.

First of all, exactly what expertise in chemistry do you and the rest of Tour’s adoring minions have that allows you to know he isn’t feeding you a pile of horseshit?

Moreover, when defending Doug Axe’s one paper you keep saying that, because it passed peer review and has not been retracted, its finding must be valid.

Well, tell me, exactly how many of those papers Tour claims to have read and discredited were not peer reviewed? And how many were retracted?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:18pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/225 "2026-01-18T20:18:58Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Rumraket](#):
> >
> > but what is clear is that the sheer number of potential interactions in some complex system tells us nothing about how the cells first evolved, or how likely it was/is.
> 
> But that has nothing to do with Tour’s challenge, it’s not about cells evolving, it’s about whether life can be created in the lab.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Rumraket](#):
> >
> > Tour invoking Levinthal’s paradox (and other similarly useless estimates) simply betrays his vast confusions.
> 
> Um, where does Tour invoke Levinthal’s paradox in any of his challenges?

He [has done so](https://youtu.be/AjTEKPonnYo?si=Mhk5LJ4FsMqo5-u3&t=2479) several times before. In that video at 41:19 he starts blathering about the protein folding problem.

Tour is so **monumentally confused** he seems to think Levinthat’s paradox shows proteins actually can’t fold at all and that God is required to fold them up, otherwise it would take more than the lifetime of the universe for a protein to search through the total conformational space before it found it’s local minima. Yes, he is that completely out of his depth here. This can’t be overstated. This is one of his dumbest points (and he’s got several competitors).

He even started blathering about it in the debate he lost to Dave Farina, and the “interactome” nonsense he brings up is wrong and misguided for basically the same reasons. The number of potential protein-protein interactions is irrelevant, since the vast majority will never occur.

This man is not a realiable guide to understanding biology, nor reasearch into the origin of life.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Rumraket](#):
> >
> > Similarly, the number of potential interactions is a meaningless number. They never occur and don’t have to occur, and it isn’t a physically real quantity that has to be designed, evolved, searched, or otherwise. It’s a useless number.
> 
> But I was being told that if you reassemble a cell, you’ll get interactions. Presumably, one of this set of possible interactions.

Who told you what, specifically?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Some interaction certainly will occur, you’re denying the obvious.

What am I denying, specifically?

This is where you need to start reading for comprehension.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> And who said this number is some sort of physically real quantity? It’s a total, you can’t pick it up and examine it like it was a toaster or something. And not all interactions are healthy, was my argument, and if you tell me that most any old interaction will do, well, that’s going to take some defending to be convincing, in the face of this huge number.

Yeah I haven’t argued any of that and it’s clear you’re not understanding what is being said.

Tour brings up the interactome in the form of the total number of potential protein-protein interactions as if it is some sort of argument against the origin of life. He seems to think this is either something that has to be somehow assembled at the origin of life, by chance, or searched until the right combination in some vast space is found by blind chance.

Either option betrays his total lack of comprehension. Since the number of **potential** (not actual, not real) interactions that could occur _never actually do_ occur and are in fact thermodynamically unfavored, they’re not real interactions that have to be sampled, searched for, designed, or whatever.

They’re simply not real. They are a thought-experiment. A theoretical result from a calculation, but the result never obtains in physical reality. It’s mental masturbation. Like trying to calculate how many different ways all the atoms that made up your latest bowl of soup could be combined.

I actually recommend you watch Dave Farina’s entire series debunking Tour. It’s quite instructive.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:19pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/226 "2026-01-18T20:19:29Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Rumraket](#):
> >
> > ATP provides energy _when_ it is hydrolyzed to AMP + PPi (ATP + H2O → AMP + PPi). The phosphoanhydride bond being broken is a hydrolysis reaction, in that it _consumes_ a molecule of water.
> > 
> > This is true for RNA polymerase catalyzing the elongation reaction just as it is true for other enzymes that depend on ATP (such as ATP synthetase). Either way, it’s a hydrolysis reaction of a phosphoanhydride bond.
> 
> But you were saying the ATP was being incorporated like a nucleotide, with other molecules. Nucleotides don’t change to some other molecule when they are incorporated.

In conclusion: I was right and you didn’t understand any of it and this is just you trying to distract from this fact.

You began this entire exchange by insisting primitive cell-membrane analogues could not exhibit any of the functions that could be useful to primitive cells without complex ion or protein transport machinery, and I showed this to be false. I did have to spend an inordinate amount of time explaining basic concepts to you, but we got here eventually.

Time for you to pick another plot of land to plant these goalposts on.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:19pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/227 "2026-01-18T20:19:47Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Rumraket](#):
> >
> > Nobody postulates that the individual components of a cell were individually synthesized and then later assembled in some big assembly event. No matter how difficult such a process might appear for human beings it bears no relation to any postulated model of the origin of life.
> 
> I’ve addressed this already, Tour is not saying this happened at the origin of life, he pointing out that no one can generate a working interactome, even given the components of a real cell. The claim being challenged is that we are close to creating life in the lab, sorry, we’re not.

As already explained Tour’s ramblings about “interactomes” are nonsensical blather not even relevant to the question of how the first forms of life arose.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/228 "2026-01-18T20:20:56Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Rumraket](#):
> >
> > > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> > >
> > > I think they are incredibly unlikely, for two reasons
> > 
> > They are basically unavoidable.
> > 
> > Here’s how we know that functional “interactomes” aren’t unlikely at all. We can move genes around from different species and show they function perfectly well, and even in cases where they have deleterious effects they’re often small and can easily be alleviated by mutation.
> 
> But moving genes doesn’t create a new interactome.

Yes it does. You now add new potential interactions.

Done, case closed. You just responded in a way that proves you have no idea what is even being discussed here. It’s pathetic. You know so little you don’t even know that your statements don’t make sense and contradict yourself.

This is ridiculous.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/229 "2026-01-18T20:21:21Z")

</div>

You are perpetually confused.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> [Here](https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/14/3/341) is a paper claiming this in 2004.

You were asked to provide examples of OoL researchers claiming that, in the near future, they will be able to synthesize living organisms in the lab from simple, non-living components.

That paper makes no such claim.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> We have been discussing Douglas Axe’s response to Art Hunt’s initial comments on Panda’s Thumb, in the thread about this topic. And I made some comments to Art Hunt about what he said were his central concerns, that had gone unaddressed, and he dropped the conversation after a few exchanges.

1. You were asked to cite when _Douglas Axe_ had responded. You are not Douglas Axe. Are you?
2. The rest of your comment illustrates that you are either a pathological liar, or have a very poor memory. Arthur responded in the comment below:

> [@Did Douglas Axe Disprove Evolution? Spoiler: No](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/356):
>
> Seeing as this topic is still active, I thought I would provide a response, here in this thread, to [the article](https://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/19310918874/correcting-four-misconceptions-about-my-2004) @lee_merrill thinks refutes [my 2007 essay](https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa.html). I would ask @lee_merrill to read and make reference to my essay - without this, my response and most of this discussion won’t make much sense. First and foremost, Points 1, 2, and 4 in Axe’s essay refer to criticisms made by others and are not to be found in my essay. Point 3 is the only one that touches on my essay, and Axe’s discussion completely avoids the point. This point is explained (with reference to my original essay) in the following. The crux of [my essay](https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa.html) can be gleaned from the first 3 figures in the essay. My main point - that remains unanswered by Axe TO THIS DAY! - is that Axe assumes an equivalence in the bases of the hills depicted in [Fig. 1](https://pandasthumb.org/uploads/2007/newerAxeF1b.png) and [Fig. 3](https://pandasthumb.org/uploads/2007/newerAxeF3b.png). The base of the hill in Fig. 3 is the parameter Axe purports to measure, while the base of the hill in Fig. 1 is the parameter that relates to the frequency of prot…

And you even replied to him (irrelevantly and ineffectually, of course) here:

> [@Did Douglas Axe Disprove Evolution? Spoiler: No](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/376):
>
> No, I’m seeing that Axe was responding to a request for comments on his 2004 paper: “In August of 2004 I received an email inquiry from plant biologist Art Hunt. He had written a draft for a blog piece aimed at reviewing a research article of mine that had just appeared in the Journal of Molecular Biology [1], and he wanted to know whether he had understood my work correctly. He clearly aimed to refute claims that were beginning to surface that my paper supported intelligent design, but he also wanted to make sure he wasn’t misconstruing my work in the process. He didn’t expect me to oblige—’I will understand if you decline; in fact, I would probably do the same…’—but I did.” Then we read: “Here I summarize what appear to be the four most common objections to using my 2004 paper in support of ID, three of which trace back to Hunt’s blog entry, the fourth perhaps originating with Steve Matheson, who joined Art Hunt last summer for critical dialog with Steve Meyer in front of an audien…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/230 "2026-01-18T20:21:44Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Mercer](#):
> >
> > Then the challenge really isn’t about the productivity of abiogenesis research.
> 
> If you can’t create an interactome that works in the lab, then it’s virtually certain that no natural process can do this.

It is virtually certain that natural processes, given hundreds of millions of years, can. But then I’m a biochemist and you and Tour aren’t.

You also don’t understand the concept of the interactome.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Mercer](#):
> >
> > Why didn’t Axe measure activity? You know that’s the question.
> 
> Because saying “I measured a continuous variable, and I don’t have any conclusion” is not going to be a good result.

That’s just inane. So are you admitting that he was trying to be dishonest? If not, why would measuring a continuous variable not lead to any conclusion? Be specific, not evasive.

Did Axe’s other papers, in which he did measure activity, not have conclusions?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/231 "2026-01-18T20:22:19Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Mercer](#):
> >
> > > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> > >
> > > What is silly is the claim that hydrothermal vents are a good place for life to emerge! “Alkaline hydrothermal vents are among the most plausible environments for the emergence of life”. Not so.
> > 
> > How much have you looked into the evidence?
> 
> Well, I listened to an expert talk about this..

Which expert, and how did you measure his expertise? Name both.

Why are you afraid of looking into the evidence for yourself? No faith?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> …and I understood what he was saying fairly well.

I’m certain you didn’t.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> One basic problem is that complex molecules go to pieces in the kind of temperatures found in hydrothermal vents.

Then how do the organisms that live there possibly survive?

[https://www.science.org/content/article/entire-ecosystem-lives-beneath-scorching-hydrothermal-vents](https://www.science.org/content/article/entire-ecosystem-lives-beneath-scorching-hydrothermal-vents)

Did Tour mention them?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Mercer](#):
> >
> > And given your lack of expertise and complete unfamiliarity with the primary literature, why should you?
> 
> Because their points are fairly accessible,

Simplistic, false claims typically are. You just falsely claimed that the organisms that live in hydrothermal vents either can’t exist or can’t have complex molecules. Which?

It appears that you just violated the Ninth Commandment yet again.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Mercer](#):
> >
> > Obviously it wasn’t adequate, as Axe’s extrapolation is the greatest outlier.
> 
> No comprendo, what do you mean by “Axe’s extrapolation”?

Of course you don’t know. You’d be far more honest if you responded to everything with “no comprendo.” Axe’s extrapolation is the one that is repeatedly regurgitated by IDcreationists, usually spicing it up by falsely describing it as an “estimate” or a “finding.”

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> The objection was that a more complex approach was better for some reason, which reason was not made clear.

It’s perfectly clear if you understand undergraduate-level biochemistry. Or even basic principles of measurement. Your replying by merely quoting Axe was an act of bad faith if you didn’t understand.

Please stop this dishonesty. Your ONLY criterion for viewing someone as an expert is that they say something you wish to be true. The ONLY one. Then you hypocritically tout mostly irrelevant expertise that they have while ignoring all expertise of others.

Is hypocrisy a Christian thing to do?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> The reviewers obviously thought Axe’s simpler approach was adequate.

Another violation of the Ninth Commandment. You have no idea what the reviewers thought or didn’t think. There are known weaknesses of peer review.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:24pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/232 "2026-01-18T20:24:23Z")

</div>

Apologies for the delay on approving posts. I have moved the thread to Side Convo.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [January 20, 2026, 10:18am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/233 "2026-01-20T10:18:36Z")

</div>

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > > [@Mercer](#):
> > >
> > > Obviously it wasn’t adequate, as Axe’s extrapolation is the greatest outlier.
> > 
> > No comprendo, what do you mean by “Axe’s extrapolation”?
> 
> Of course you don’t know. You’d be far more honest if you responded to everything with “no comprendo.” Axe’s extrapolation is the one that is repeatedly regurgitated by IDcreationists, usually spicing it up by falsely describing it as an “estimate” or a “finding.”

_Amazingly_, after all this time and so much discussion on the topic, and despite Lee clearly being in possession of Axe’s paper and having quoted from it, he is still not aware that Axe’s method is fundamentally based on extrapolation to L=153 from the per-position pass-rate of four ~10 residue fragments.

That is, from 40 residues out of a protein 153 residues in length. Axe even shows the calculation in the “Implications” section.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 23, 2026, 2:57am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/234 "2026-01-23T02:57:46Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Mercer](#):
> >
> > Which is just plain silly. Here’s an example of real OOL research:
> > 
> > [Isoprenoids enhance the stability of fatty acid membranes at the emergence of life potentially leading to an early lipid divide - PMC](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6802135/)
> 
> What is silly is the claim that hydrothermal vents are a good place for life to emerge! “Alkaline hydrothermal vents are among the most plausible environments for the emergence of life”. Not so. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LWqGVgr9J0&t=55s) is video where Ed Pelzer talks with James Tour about this subject, Pelzer is a retired deep-sea researcher who knows about this area.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> What is silly is the claim that hydrothermal vents are a good place for life to emerge! “Alkaline hydrothermal vents are among the most plausible environments for the emergence of life”. Not so. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LWqGVgr9J0&t=55s) is video where Ed Pelzer talks with James Tour about this subject, Pelzer is a retired deep-sea researcher who knows about this area.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
> >
> > > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> > >
> > > I will mention though [the problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality-induced_spin_selectivity) of Chirality-induced spin selectivity. Tour has spoken of the previous OOL view, that we could do without strictly homochiral molecules, and evolution could sort it out, along the way.
> > 
> > As usual, Tour is full of shit.
> > 
> > [‘Breakthrough’ could explain why life molecules are left- or right-handed | Science | AAAS](https://www.science.org/content/article/breakthrough-could-explain-why-life-molecules-are-left-or-right-handed)
> 
> “The quest that began with Pasteur isn’t quite over, though. One loose end, Sasselov acknowledges, is that RAO has only been shown to lead to the synthesis of two of RNA’s four nucleotides, cytosine and uracil. It isn’t known to produce the other two, adenine and guanine, although Sasselov says there’s a “big push” to search for RAO reactions that could do it. If they can, the mystery of biological handedness might be another step closer to being solved.”
> 
> So no home run, yet. Maybe we got to second base. And then there’s all the other molecules, that have to be homochiral. So we’re still not back to where we were, when OOL researchers were proposing that we can manage without homochirality.

And [here](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/107) is the description that started the discussion off, the pertinent statement being: “It’s being used by T7 RNA polymerase to make RNA. ATP is one of the four RNA nucleotides (the three others being UTP, GTP, and CTP).”

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> First of all, exactly what expertise in chemistry do you and the rest of Tour’s adoring minions have that allows you to know he isn’t feeding you a pile of horseshit?

Again, the points he makes are fairly accessible, it’s not rocket science. As in Tour’s challenges! Just hook up a few molecules properly, can you do that? Nope. There are just too many combinations, and no good way to control them. And so on.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Moreover, when defending Doug Axe’s one paper you keep saying that, because it passed peer review and has not been retracted, its finding must be valid.
> 
> Well, tell me, exactly how many of those papers Tour claims to have read and discredited were not peer reviewed? And how many were retracted?

Certainly peer review and no retraction is good evidence a paper is valid, but you and others are not satisfied with this with Axe’s paper, and I agree! It should still stand up to outside investigation, publication is not a guarantee of truth. But Tour’s point is different, that what they do is not what they claim! They are claiming results outside of their papers, to the press and the public, that don’t match what they are actually accomplishing, which is very little.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 23, 2026, 3:46am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/235 "2026-01-23T03:46:54Z")

</div>

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Um, where does Tour invoke Levinthal’s paradox in any of his challenges?
> 
> He [has done so](https://youtu.be/AjTEKPonnYo?si=Mhk5LJ4FsMqo5-u3&t=2479) several times before. In that video at 41:19 he starts blathering about the protein folding problem.

But you changed the question! I was asking about his challenges, which is the point of this thread, where is Levinthal’s paradox in them?

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> Tour is so **monumentally confused** he seems to think Levinthat’s paradox shows proteins actually can’t fold at all and that God is required to fold them up, otherwise it would take more than the lifetime of the universe for a protein to search through the total conformational space before it found it’s local minima.

I’m sure you are misunderstanding Tour’s view, since Tour says he doesn’t think OOL problems will never be solved. So he’s not going to do God-of-the-gaps here, and work on Levinthal’s paradox is [ongoing](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9842845/#Sec9), and they’re not done yet, evidently.

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> and the “interactome” nonsense he brings up is wrong and misguided for basically the same reasons. The number of potential protein-protein interactions is irrelevant, since the vast majority will never occur.

Well, sure, who said they would? But not just any old set of interactions will work, is the point, and if you are correct in implying it’s not some very difficult problem, then why have none of the challenged researchers answered Tour’s fifth challenge? Why don’t you answer it?

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > But I was being told that if you reassemble a cell, you’ll get interactions. Presumably, one of this set of possible interactions.
> 
> Who told you what, specifically?

Why does it matter? Are you saying if you put all the needed proteins in a cell, they won’t interact? That’s absurd.

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> Since the number of **potential** (not actual, not real) interactions that could occur _never actually do_ occur and are in fact thermodynamically unfavored, they’re not real interactions that have to be sampled, searched for, designed, or whatever.

Wait, you’re saying that if you assemble all the components of a cell, no thermodynamically unfavored interaction sets will occur? Why is that?

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> I actually recommend you watch Dave Farina’s entire series debunking Tour. It’s quite instructive.

Ah, Professor Dave! But he’s not a professor, he’s a YouTube voice. And [here](https://scienceandculture.com/2023/05/a-war-of-words-how-to-tell-who-won-the-tour-farina-debate/) is a summary from an ID perspective of their “debate”. Dave resorted mainly to insults, and did not respond specifically to Tour’s challenges. Like the OOL scientists have not responded to Tour’s challenges, neither has anyone here. And I recommend Tour’s 14-part series debunking Professor Dave!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 23, 2026, 3:55am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/236 "2026-01-23T03:55:59Z")

</div>

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > But you were saying the ATP was being incorporated like a nucleotide, with other molecules. Nucleotides don’t change to some other molecule when they are incorporated.
> 
> In conclusion: I was right and you didn’t understand any of it and this is just you trying to distract from this fact.

Oops! You didn’t address what I said, you just claim victory.

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> You began this entire exchange by insisting primitive cell-membrane analogues could not exhibit any of the functions that could be useful to primitive cells without complex ion or protein transport machinery, and I showed this to be false.

Well, you didn’t, actually semi-permeable membranes are not selective, and you can’t let just any molecule in and out of a cell. And I mentioned that if a vesicle encloses the surrounding liquid, it starts in equilibrium. So molecules are not going to move in and out to reach equilibrium, it’s already there. And why will this initial sample from its environment be appropriate for the protocell’s needs? Lucky cell. So selective transport is not an optional add-on, cells have them for a reason, for example, to maintain a needed ion gradient, equilibrium with its environment will mess a cell up.

Time for you to pick another plot of land to plant your banner of victory on!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 23, 2026, 4:03am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/237 "2026-01-23T04:03:33Z")

</div>

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > I’ve addressed this already, Tour is not saying this happened at the origin of life, he pointing out that no one can generate a working interactome, even given the components of a real cell. The claim being challenged is that we are close to creating life in the lab, sorry, we’re not.
> 
> As already explained Tour’s ramblings about “interactomes” are nonsensical blather not even relevant to the question of how the first forms of life arose.

But none of this addresses what I said, the question is about the claim to be close to producing life in the lab! And if we can’t do this in the lab, for sure nature cannot do it in some warm, little pool.

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > > [@Rumraket](#):
> > >
> > > Here’s how we know that functional “interactomes” aren’t unlikely at all. We can move genes around from different species and show they function perfectly well, and even in cases where they have deleterious effects they’re often small and can easily be alleviated by mutation.
> > 
> > But moving genes doesn’t create a new interactome.
> 
> Yes it does. You now add new potential interactions.

Protein-protein interactions? Those are the main focus, you can’t just leave them out, and not get them started properly too.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 23, 2026, 4:20am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/238 "2026-01-23T04:20:26Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
> >
> > > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> > >
> > > But the claim was that the home run was done! Can you not see this?
> > 
> > Please quote where someone claimed to have hit a home run. Metaphorically, of course.
> 
> [Here](https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/14/3/341) is a paper claiming this in 2004.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> You were asked to provide examples of OoL researchers claiming that, in the near future, they will be able to synthesize living organisms in the lab from simple, non-living components.
> 
> That paper makes no such claim.

Please review the exchange again, which I repeated above, you challenged me to produce a claim that a home run (meaning solving the homochirality problem) was done. This I did. You have changed the challenge, so of course the paper I reference doesn’t satisfy your new challenge.

As far as providing examples of OOL researchers claiming that, in the near future, they will be able to synthesize living organisms in the lab from simple, non-living components, I gave the link to the video where Tour names names, and specified the year the claims were made. I then asked why the named researchers apparently have never said they never made such a claim. I certainly would speak up, if someone says I made a prediction I never made.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > We have been discussing Douglas Axe’s response to Art Hunt’s initial comments on Panda’s Thumb, in the thread about this topic. And I made some comments to Art Hunt about what he said were his central concerns, that had gone unaddressed, and he dropped the conversation after a few exchanges.
> 
> 1. You were asked to cite when _Douglas Axe_ had responded. You are not Douglas Axe. Are you?

No, but Axe did respond to Art Hunt’s initial comments, which he sent to Axe for review, and subsequently posted.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> And you even replied to him (irrelevantly and ineffectually, of course) here…
> 
> So how is my response irrelevant and ineffective? Especially in view of this quote of Axe: “Here I summarize what appear to be the four most common objections to using my 2004 paper in support of ID, three of which trace back to Hunt’s blog entry, the fourth perhaps originating with Steve Matheson, who joined Art Hunt last summer for critical dialog…”
> 
> You have “Psychiatrist” in your title, you must certainly be aware of the concept of wishful thinking. People do take up what they wish to be true here, a lot, and somehow it transmogrifies into a conclusion that it is true. But a little probing shows this is a delusion. Which you also must be familiar with.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [January 23, 2026, 2:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/240 "2026-01-23T14:15:47Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Certainly peer review and no retraction is good evidence a paper is valid, but you and others are not satisfied with this with Axe’s paper, and I agree!

Well, that’s great, because you have been denying that for several weeks now. Good to see something finally got thru to you.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But Tour’s point is different, that what they do is not what they claim! They are claiming results outside of their papers, to the press and the public, that don’t match what they are actually accomplishing, which is very little.

Yes, that is Tour’s claim. And he is full of shit as usual. Certainly, you have failed to produce any quotations in which scientists actually do this.

This is reminiscent of how Tour first emerged as a figure in the culture wars over evolution. He made the audacious claim that evolutionary scientists routinely admitted to him, in secret behind closed doors, that no one actually understands how evolution works.

To this day, not a single person has confirmed that they told him this. I conclude he was lying.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 23, 2026, 3:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/241 "2026-01-23T15:56:28Z")

</div>

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > > [@Mercer](#):
> > >
> > > > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> > > >
> > > > What is silly is the claim that hydrothermal vents are a good place for life to emerge! “Alkaline hydrothermal vents are among the most plausible environments for the emergence of life”. Not so.
> > > 
> > > How much have you looked into the evidence?
> > 
> > Well, I listened to an expert talk about this..
> 
> Which expert, and how did you measure his expertise? Name both.
> 
> Why are you afraid of looking into the evidence for yourself? No faith?

Ed Peltzer, a retired chemist, whose field was oceanography, and he did research on hydrothermal vents. He was a student of Jeffrey Bada and Stanley Miller. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LWqGVgr9J0) is the video of his discussion with James Tour, which includes some discussion of Peltzer’s work on hydrothermal vents. And this would be one example of looking into the evidence myself, since I want to examine my beliefs and conclusions. Blind faith is not actually a Biblical concept, sorry, Dawkins and Kierkegaard.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > …and I understood what he was saying fairly well.
> 
> I’m certain you didn’t.

Maybe you could watch the video, and point out the parts that only experts could understand. I don’t recall any.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > One basic problem is that complex molecules go to pieces in the kind of temperatures found in hydrothermal vents.
> 
> Then how do the organisms that live there possibly survive?

They are indeed amazing creatures! You have no doubt heard of extremophiles, life exists in some very astonishing ways, in some very astonishing places. But this does not disprove the point, that complex molecules in isolation do not hold up in hydrothermal vents, that is the point you need to disprove, if you maintain that life originated, or even started to develop, in these places.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> Did Tour mention them?

I would have to rewatch the video to be sure, I don’t recall that he did, likely because the discussion was about origin of life, not extremophiles.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Because their points are fairly accessible,
> 
> Simplistic, false claims typically are. You just falsely claimed that the organisms that live in hydrothermal vents either can’t exist or can’t have complex molecules.

Well, you need to show their claims are false, whether they are simple or not. And I did not claim that the organisms that live in hydrothermal vents either can’t exist or can’t have complex molecules. Again, I’m well aware of extremophiles, and I again point out that origin of life does not involve organisms, or the molecules they have.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> Axe’s extrapolation is the one that is repeatedly regurgitated by IDcreationists, usually spicing it up by falsely describing it as an “estimate” or a “finding.”

You tell me what you think of it, but you still haven’t told me what it is!

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> It’s perfectly clear if you understand undergraduate-level biochemistry. Or even basic principles of measurement. Your replying by merely quoting Axe was an act of bad faith if you didn’t understand.

So the reviewers of Axe’s paper apparently didn’t understand undergraduate-level biochemistry. Or even basic principles of measurement. I consider that unlikely. And again, the claim is made that a more complex approach was better for some reason, without giving the reason.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> Please stop this dishonesty. Your ONLY criterion for viewing someone as an expert is that they say something you wish to be true. The ONLY one. Then you hypocritically tout mostly irrelevant expertise that they have while ignoring all expertise of others.

But I’m not being dishonest, I’m in this forum, listening and evaluating what you and others say, as well as what ID people say. And you people are not making a good case for your view, I must say. Even a rube like me can find problems with your statements, none of your points even in this post have proven to be cogent and unanswerable. And then science itself is not some sort of area where we expect complete and unanimous agreement, and no discussion.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > The reviewers obviously thought Axe’s simpler approach was adequate.
> 
> Another violation of the Ninth Commandment. You have no idea what the reviewers thought or didn’t think. There are known weaknesses of peer review.

Certainly I don’t claim knowledge of the reviewers’ actual thoughts! By “they thought” I meant “they concluded”. Another non-point, which is easily answered. My point is that it’s more likely that the reviewers did a good job, Axe even mentions that they were experts in their field. People don’t get to be reviewers for a scientific journal without some substantial qualifications.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 23, 2026, 4:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/242 "2026-01-23T16:23:56Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > No, Tour’s claim was the OOL scientists predicted at conferences, several times that in a few years they would have made life in the lab. The claim, naming names, was in [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0InjvwBXTg).
> 
> Did you lie, or just forget?

You gave two challenges, per the exchange I quoted, and the exchange you quoted! I answered both of them.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> The issue is whether Axe has ever responded to the later article Art wrote in 2018. The facts are clear. He did not, and has not. Why do you feel the need to deny plain, obvious facts like this?

I agree, I don’t deny this.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Moreover, Art has also made clear that Axe has not actually responded substantively to his claims in the initial article. Axe wrote a bunch of words, sure. But that, by itself, does not make for a substantive response.

But I went through each point Axe made, showed Art Hunt how they were relevant, and he did object, but he didn’t refute the points I made. And then withdrew. And I have repeatedly challenged people here to show how Axe’s response is incorrect, and only Rumraket has actually set out to do this, and this discussion with him has tailed off, where he didn’t respond to my latest post.

Please defend your claim! And show where Axe’s response was insubstantial, or wrong.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > So how is my response irrelevant and ineffective? Especially in view of this quote of Axe: “Here I summarize what appear to be the four most common objections to using my 2004 paper in support of ID, three of which trace back to Hunt’s blog entry, the fourth perhaps originating with Steve Matheson, who joined Art Hunt last summer for critical dialog…”
> 
> Your response was irrelevant and ineffective because it did not address, nor even indicate a basic understanding, of the issues under discussion. Much like your quote from Axe above is completely irrelevant to what you are responding here.
> 
> You really don’t know how to think properly, not at all.

Eh? How do Axe’s responses to four common objections not address the issues, and do not indicate a basic understanding of them? Or maybe you meant that I did not address the issues, or understand them? But if so, this is irrelevant, I was quoting Axe, not presenting my view.

I’m tempted to say to you that “You really don’t know how to think properly, not at all”.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> That is not what defines a delusion. And, once again, it is completely irrelevant to what you are supposed to be discussing, which is whether psychiatrists conclude things to be wrong on the basis that they come from something called “unreasoning sources.”

Actually, I didn’t propose a definition of a delusion, and I meant what people usually mean by the term: “a false idea or belief” (Merriam-Webster). Exactly. And that includes what psychiatrists mean by this, which admittedly is more technical: “a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary” (Merriam-Webster, again)

And this thread is actually about “James Tour and his 60-day challenge”, we can continue discussing whether psychiatrists do in fact look for unreasoning causes when they listen to their client’s complaints, in the other thread where this came up.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564.md?page=11)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564.md?page=13)