# 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:** 15

<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 25, 2026, 9:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/283 "2026-01-25T21:20:57Z")

</div>

The most hilarious thing is how this guy still doesn’t understand that ATP is used to make RNA in living cells right now. Imagine if you were to try to explain to him where the energy ultimately comes from?

But hey, we’re talking to a man who appears to believe he’s been possessed by a demon. He’s basically the “delirious” person he kept blathering about in his botched argument against a physical basis for thinking. There is no reason to keep interacting with him.

---

<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 25, 2026, 11:31pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/284 "2026-01-25T23:31:03Z")

</div>

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Great, so please examine Peltzer’s arguments, and explain why he is wrong, he is certainly qualified enough (I posted his qualifications previously) to make statements about hydrothermal vents.
> 
> You’re claiming that he is knowledgable about much more than that. Your moving of the goalposts there is further evidence of dishonest intent.

What goalposts have been moved? I claimed he knows oceanography, I also mentioned specifically hydrothermal vents, so now please examine his points about vents, and explain why he is wrong. I conclude you believe he is wrong, now please back that up.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > > [@Mercer](#):
> > >
> > > If you knew how cells use ATP, you would know where “hydrolysis enters the picture.” Molecular biology and biochemistry don’t get much more basic than that.
> > 
> > So [I looked it up](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_hydrolysis), and the description there involves ATP to ADP,…
> 
> You didn’t go into any depth, predictably.

I did go into more detail, and saw even more detail that I didn’t mention.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > nothing about incorporation into a chain, _without changing ATP_.
> 
> No one has claimed that it isn’t changed. Quit lying. You’re also lying because it one of the things mentioned in the first paragraph, “biosynthetic processes necessary to maintain life.” That covers RNA synthesis perfectly.

Rumraket certainly seemed to, he said it was like nucleotides, which don’t become different molecules when they are incorporated. And ATP is incorporated without change inside living cells? I don’t think so. But maybe you meant something else.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> @Rumraket gave a detailed description that you predictably ignored.

I actually responded to him, as I recall, he left off responding to me, please post a link if I didn’t respond somewhere, and I will respond.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > So my question stands.
> 
> There are some obvious ways to look it up if you were even mildly curious

I did look into hydrolysis, and didn’t find anything like ATP being incorporated without change, like a nucleotide.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > and [here](https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/interview-with-edward-peltzer-on-the-origin-of-life/) is an interview where he gives reasons the hydrothermal vent origin of life molecules is implausible,
> 
> Why should I care? He’s not an expert and unlike you, I’m a biochemist and examine the evidence for myself.

Apparently you haven’t examined Peltzer’s evidence! And it’s not allowed to be knowledgeable in other areas than your main field? He does mention having an interest in OOL, he was even a student of Stanley Miller, and had many discussions with him about OOL. You may have heard of Stanley Miller. And you implied he was wrong, if you don’t care to defend your claim, you’re not going to convince anyone. And if you don’t care to convince anyone, why do you post in this forum? Why do you respond to me?

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > From [WIkipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction): “_[Denaturation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denaturation_(biochemistry)#Nucleic_acid_denaturation)_: This step is the first regular cycling event and consists of heating the reaction chamber to 94–98 °C (201–208 °F) for 20–30 seconds. This causes [DNA melting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_melting), or denaturation, of the double-stranded DNA template by breaking the [hydrogen bonds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bond) between complementary bases, yielding two single-stranded DNA molecules.”
> 
> Then what happens? What happens to the polymerase at what temperature?

I posted that part to show that the molecules of interest do disassemble at the denaturation stage at such temperatures. This refutes your claim that they didn’t. And yes, they then lower the temperature for an annealing phase, but I could point out for one, that hydrothermal vents don’t vary their temperature like that, certainly not in a controlled way and so specifically.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Apparently, he didn’t, since it appears you can’t point me to a link where he did that.
> 
> I can. You’d simply ignore it and continue to lie.

So who is ignoring who here?

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > > [@Mercer](#):
> > >
> > > Again, the only qualification you consider is whether someone agrees with you. Thus, someone who hasn’t published in the primary literature in more than 21 years magically becomes a 9/10 in my field!
> > 
> > But I’ve given a number of reasons that Axe is well-qualified,
> 
> None of them hold up to seconds of scrutiny.

But you haven’t refuted any of them! You certainly haven’t investigated what I’ve said.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > and evidence his work has held up.
> 
> None whatsoever. I note that you disregard the same type of evidence WRT OOL. Why the blatant hypocrisy?

Actually, what is happening is for the most part, I make points, and you dismiss them.

---

<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 25, 2026, 11:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/285 "2026-01-25T23:40:33Z")

</div>

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> The most hilarious thing is how this guy still doesn’t understand that ATP is used to make RNA in living cells right now. Imagine if you were to try to explain to him where the energy ultimately comes from?

That’s fine, and that’s quite different than incorporating ATP itself into a chain, like a nucleotide.

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> But hey, we’re talking to a man who appears to believe he’s been possessed by a demon.

Actually, I don’t say that, certainly I say I’ve experienced oppression, pressure from demonic sources, successfully resisting this. That would not be possession, where it’s like a demon takes over.

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> He’s basically the “delirious” person he kept blathering about in his botched argument against a physical basis for thinking.

It’s strange then, that you all point out unreasoning causes for what I say, delirium in this instance, so therefore you can reject my statements. You illustrate my view very well. People recognize this principle, and apply it all the time.

---

<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 26, 2026, 12:04am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/286 "2026-01-26T00:04:40Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> What goalposts have been moved?

Your lie was:

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

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> so now please examine his points about vents,

No. I do evidence, not hearsay.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I conclude you believe he is wrong, now please back that up.

You believe that you and he are right, now back that up. You never will, because you are lying.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I did go into more detail, and saw even more detail that I didn’t mention.

The tiny bit you did mention shows that you don’t have a clue.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Mercer](#):
> >
> > > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> > >
> > > nothing about incorporation into a chain, _without changing ATP_.
> > 
> > No one has claimed that it isn’t changed. Quit lying. You’re also lying because it one of the things mentioned in the first paragraph, “biosynthetic processes necessary to maintain life.” That covers RNA synthesis perfectly.
> 
> Rumraket certainly seemed to,

That’s because you have trouble with basic English.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> he said it was like nucleotides, which don’t become different molecules when they are incorporated.

That’s not all he wrote. He was perfectly clear:

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> Technically polymers of DNA and RNA contain a phosphodiester bond, which you don’t find in the monomers. However (NMP)n is a commonly used description of polymers of RNA, in that the elongation reaction can be described as:  
> (NMP)n + NTP → (NMP)n+1 + PPi

You don’t understand that, but you pretend to, which is a violation of the Ninth Commandment.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I actually responded to him…

You did not respond to his explanation I quoted above. You just pretended it didn’t exist. An honest Christian who didn’t understand it would ask questions, but you’re not honest.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Mercer](#):
> >
> > > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> > >
> > > So my question stands.
> > 
> > There are some obvious ways to look it up if you were even mildly curious
> 
> I did look into hydrolysis, and didn’t find anything like ATP being incorporated without change, like a nucleotide.

Lee, stop lying. You obviously don’t understand high-school molecular biology, but you pretend to, which violates the Ninth Commandment.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Apparently you haven’t examined Peltzer’s evidence!

What evidence? Opinions aren’t evidence.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> And it’s not allowed to be knowledgeable in other areas than your main field?

You have no idea who’s knowledgeable about what, particularly since you claimed a mere postdoc is a 9/10 in his field.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> He does mention having an interest in OOL, he was even a student of Stanley Miller, and had many discussions with him about OOL. You may have heard of Stanley Miller. And you implied he was wrong…

Another lie. I clearly stated that opinions aren’t evidence. OOL research has come a long way since Miller died 18 years ago.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I posted that part to show that the molecules of interest do disassemble at the denaturation stage at such temperatures.

That’s another lie. That wasn’t your claim. PCR can’t amplify DNA if it “goes to pieces,” can it? DNA is locally denatured for every function it mediates. Cooling denatured DNA causes it to renature. So, claiming that denaturation supports your lie is yet another in a firehose of lies you’ve spewed here.

Does the DNA polymerase get denatured?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> but I could point out for one, that hydrothermal vents don’t vary their temperature like that,

You could, but that would be dishonest. What happens to the polymerase?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But you haven’t refuted any of them!

Every single one of them. You, OTOH, supported none of your assertions.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Mercer](#):
> >
> > > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> > >
> > > and evidence his work has held up.
> > 
> > None whatsoever. I note that you disregard the same type of evidence WRT OOL. Why the blatant hypocrisy?
> 
> Actually, what is happening is for the most part, I make points, and you dismiss them.

You just made my point by disregarding the OOL papers.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AnEvolvedPrimate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@AnEvolvedPrimate](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AnEvolvedPrimate)\
**Post date:** [January 26, 2026, 1:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/287 "2026-01-26T13:23:50Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> What people present when they are asked for evidence will often come back to some appeal to authority, to what some person said or wrote.

Is this how you believe science works?

---

<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 26, 2026, 2:39pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/288 "2026-01-26T14:39:24Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> You did pick up my analogy, and tried to refute it, and I responded. But no scientist used that analogy, to my knowledge, this was a mistaken claim you made.

I never claimed a scientist had used that analogy. It is utterly baffling that you would think I had, and that this pertains to our discussion at all.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Why then did you post the paper?

Because it _does_ support the point I _was_ making (as opposed to the point your confused brain led you to believe I was making).

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Actually, Rumraket did not respond to my latest post on this. I made a reply to his latest point, which was not addressed.

You ought not confuse a situation in which someone has realized the futility of trying to make you understand something and given up in frustration, with one in which you have won the argument. This is a mistake you make repeatedly.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> They certainly don’t match! Two out of four RNA nucleotides is not arguably about “life molecules” in general.

Oh, that’s interesting. So, by your reasoning, when Doug Axe does an experiment on a mutated form of a protein, he should not claim that this tells us anything about the wild form of that protein, never mind about proteins in general.

I suggest you write to Axe at Biola and explain to him how you have disproven his entire argument.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Yes, and accepting the implications of his paper seems both honest and intelligent, until someone refutes him.

He has been refuted. Many times. And i suspect he knows it, that’s why he has stopped responding to critics.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Well, it was, actually, Joshua Swamidass mentioned something pertinent, I mentioned my discussion with Art Hunt, and Axe did respond to Hunt’s initial concerns, and no one has shown how his counterpoints were wrong, or irrelevant. Those were meaningful responses, which you did ask for…

Here’s another thing you don’t understand: If someone asks you a question, and you write a bunch of words that don’t answer the question, you have not answered the question.

I wonder if this is a problem shared by everyone on the far right. For instance, watch the video below. Dana Bash asks Gregory Bovino a very specific question. In response, Bovino’s mouth certainly moves, and sounds certainly do emit from it. But do those sounds amount to an answer? No, they do not.

[![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/3X/8/f/8fda7b2202ac6ecc3b59cca4353a6d853671f92d.jpeg "Bash presses Bovino on Alex Pretti killing: 'What evidence do you have?'") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elghl2eIT6U)

---

<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 26, 2026, 3:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/289 "2026-01-26T15:06:19Z")

</div>

I couldn’t just absent-brained go on to ask him further questions as if what just happened was normal interviewing. We saw his “victims” commit murder before our very eyes, he needs to be called a lying sack of shit to his face and I’d donate to the TV station where reporters had the gall to do it.

I some times wonder whether the talking heads on TV truly are robots and not genuine human beings.

---

<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 26, 2026, 3:25pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/290 "2026-01-26T15:25:56Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Rumraket](#):
> >
> > But hey, we’re talking to a man who appears to believe he’s been possessed by a demon.
> 
> Actually, I don’t say that, certainly I say I’ve experienced oppression, pressure from demonic sources, successfully resisting this. That would not be possession, where it’s like a demon takes over.

Right, silly me. I should have studied more Daemonology I see.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Art](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/art/32/3805_2.png) [@Art](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Art)\
**Post date:** [January 26, 2026, 6:47pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/291 "2026-01-26T18:47:12Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I agree that Axe did not respond to Hunt’s 2018 article, do I have to keep saying this? And I said I tried to address what Hunt called his main concerns, here, and I did not see a good defense, and Hunt withdrew.

Lee, you should not take intermittent participation on my part as “withdrawal”. You have never - EVER - provided an adequate defense of Axe as it relates to my two main points. Once you come up with something that is more than referring to essays that we already know are either irrelevant or ineffective, I will comment. You haven’t to date. You should stop trying to bluff your way through this. It’s perfectly OK to state that Axe has not addressed my main points (of course - the truth is always preferable). It’s also perfectly OK to start at this point and ask questions about the aspects of this discussion you clearly do not understand.

---

<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 26, 2026, 9:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/292 "2026-01-26T21:07:58Z")

</div>

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > What goalposts have been moved?
> 
> Your lie was:
> 
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > One basic problem is that complex molecules go to pieces in the kind of temperatures found in hydrothermal vents.
> 
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > so now please examine his points about vents,
> 
> No. I do evidence, not hearsay.

That’s not moving the goalposts, though! That was my initial claim, my reason for not reading the rest of the paper, which depended on this. But again, you accept nothing on authority? Why did you go to class in school, and take notes, and read books that were assigned to you?

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > I conclude you believe he is wrong, now please back that up.
> 
> You believe that you and he are right, now back that up.

I did mention his view about large molecules disintegrating in vents, and discussed your counterexample, which showed DNA separating due to temperature, though I do recognize a subsequent annealing phase. Your counter example still proves my point. So I presented and defending a claim, now it’s your turn to defend your claim.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > I did go into more detail, and saw even more detail that I didn’t mention.
> 
> The tiny bit you did mention shows that you don’t have a clue.

Ah. So I did provide evidence?

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > he said it was like nucleotides, which don’t become different molecules when they are incorporated.
> 
> That’s not all he wrote. He was perfectly clear:
> 
> > [@Rumraket](#):
> >
> > Technically polymers of DNA and RNA contain a phosphodiester bond, which you don’t find in the monomers. However (NMP)n is a commonly used description of polymers of RNA, in that the elongation reaction can be described as:  
> > (NMP)n + NTP → (NMP)n+1 + PPi
> 
> You don’t understand that, but you pretend to, which is a violation of the Ninth Commandment.

Rumraket continued:

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> In either case it doesn’t matter because whatever your original point was is now completely worthless. The energy for the reaction comes from NTPs, the fact that those same NTPs are also used in a chemical reaction that builds up a larger macromolecule is neither here nor there. They diffuse across the membrane from the outside to the inside and are then used in an internal reaction where the product (RNA polymers) aren’t lost to the environment afterwards.
> 
> It’s one of those things reading Tour’s materials will make you think couldn’t happen and has never even been attempted.

So the point doesn’t matter, so that’s fine. But I’ve never heard Tour claim diffusion cannot happen, I expect he is aware of that, and instead he [points to](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWJEwv14NKU) the extraordinary complexity of living cell membranes, with over 40,000(!) different lipids, he points out that when making synthetic vesicles, mixtures with monoacyl lipids can destablize the system–so how are these avoided? And the outside lipids are different than the inside lipids, nobody knows how that was done. And so on.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AnEvolvedPrimate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@AnEvolvedPrimate](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AnEvolvedPrimate)\
**Post date:** [January 26, 2026, 9:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/293 "2026-01-26T21:11:17Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But again, you accept nothing on authority? Why did you go to class in school, and take notes, and read books that were assigned to you?

Out of curiosity, have you ever taken a post-secondary science course?

---

<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 26, 2026, 9:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/294 "2026-01-26T21:23:59Z")

</div>

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Apparently you haven’t examined Peltzer’s evidence!
> 
> What evidence? Opinions aren’t evidence.

Ah, so this statement is just your opinion? I therefore can dismiss it?

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > And it’s not allowed to be knowledgeable in other areas than your main field?
> 
> You have no idea who’s knowledgeable about what, particularly since you claimed a mere postdoc is a 9/10 in his field.

You didn’t answer my question. And Axe isn’t just a postdoc any more, he’s the Rosa Endowed Chair of Molecular Biology at Biola University.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > He does mention having an interest in OOL, he was even a student of Stanley Miller, and had many discussions with him about OOL. You may have heard of Stanley Miller. And you implied he was wrong…
> 
> Another lie. I clearly stated that opinions aren’t evidence. OOL research has come a long way since Miller died 18 years ago.

Ah. Another opinion. I dismiss what you just said. But I will ask this, what substantial OOL progress has been made in 18 years? And I’m not asking for papers, I’m asking for progress. Such as membrane construction. Tour says they still only use one lipid.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > I posted that part to show that the molecules of interest do disassemble at the denaturation stage at such temperatures.
> 
> That’s another lie. That wasn’t your claim. PCR can’t amplify DNA if it “goes to pieces,” can it? DNA is locally denatured for every function it mediates. Cooling denatured DNA causes it to renature. So, claiming that denaturation supports your lie is yet another in a firehose of lies you’ve spewed here.

Well, it disassembles, is what I said, which confirms that large molecules don’t hold together in high temperatures. Put a molecule of DNA in a hydrothermal vent, and I think more will happen, it will arguably, go to pieces.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> Does the DNA polymerase get denatured?

I think more would happen, it wouldn’t hold together in a hydrothermal vent, it would go to pieces, per Ed Peltzer. This is what you need to refute, and even your counterexample shows DNA disassembling due to raising the temperature.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > But you haven’t refuted any of them!
> 
> Every single one of them. You, OTOH, supported none of your assertions.

Um, this is what is called an assertion. You do what you accuse me of doing.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Actually, what is happening is for the most part, I make points, and you dismiss them.
> 
> You just made my point by disregarding the OOL papers.

So papers are now evidence? I can’t just dismiss them as hearsay? But what OOL papers have I disregarded? I do try and address points people make here, especially if they point to a paper..

---

<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 26, 2026, 9:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/295 "2026-01-26T21:27:28Z")

</div>

> [@AnEvolvedPrimate](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > What people present when they are asked for evidence will often come back to some appeal to authority, to what some person said or wrote.
> 
> Is this how you believe science works?

To some degree, so in order to keep abreast of the field, you have to read papers, and listen to presentations at conferences, and consult with colleagues. That’s taking things on authority. But certainly scientists also do their own experiments.

---

<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 26, 2026, 9:46pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/296 "2026-01-26T21:46:56Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > You did pick up my analogy, and tried to refute it, and I responded. But no scientist used that analogy, to my knowledge, this was a mistaken claim you made.
> 
> I never claimed a scientist had used that analogy.

All right, I got off track. But you still need to show how OOL has made net progress on homochirality, after claiming they had a good answer for this.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Why then did you post the paper?
> 
> Because it _does_ support the point I _was_ making (as opposed to the point your confused brain led you to believe I was making).

And my reply has been that this shows getting halfway back to where they had claimed to be. Not even halfway back, actually! Only RNA was addressed, there are lots of molecules that need to be homochiral. So no net progress yet.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Actually, Rumraket did not respond to my latest post on this. I made a reply to his latest point, which was not addressed.
> 
> You ought not confuse a situation in which someone has realized the futility of trying to make you understand something and given up in frustration, with one in which you have won the argument.

In a sword duel, if a person withdraws, it’s not typically for the reason you give.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > They certainly don’t match! Two out of four RNA nucleotides is not arguably about “life molecules” in general.
> 
> Oh, that’s interesting. So, by your reasoning, when Doug Axe does an experiment on a mutated form of a protein, he should not claim that this tells us anything about the wild form of that protein, never mind about proteins in general.

If Axe claims his results only apply for this mutated form of a protein, then yes, he should not claim this applies to proteins in general. But the authors in the paper you pointed to said more work needs to be done for the other nucleotides, implying their results did not apply more generally.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Yes, and accepting the implications of his paper seems both honest and intelligent, until someone refutes him.
> 
> He has been refuted. Many times. And i suspect he knows it, that’s why he has stopped responding to critics.

As I always ask, how and where? Please (again) point to one point people have made in the Douglas Axe thread that has gone unaddressed, which has proved unanswerable.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Well, it was, actually, Joshua Swamidass mentioned something pertinent, I mentioned my discussion with Art Hunt, and Axe did respond to Hunt’s initial concerns, and no one has shown how his counterpoints were wrong, or irrelevant. Those were meaningful responses, which you did ask for…
> 
> Here’s another thing you don’t understand: If someone asks you a question, and you write a bunch of words that don’t answer the question, you have not answered the question.

So how does Swamidass’ point not address the question, and so on? So again, please point to a post I did which is just a “bunch of words” that don’t address what someone said?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [January 26, 2026, 9:47pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/297 "2026-01-26T21:47:30Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> And Axe isn’t just a postdoc any more, he’s the Rosa Endowed Chair of Molecular Biology at Biola University.

That means squat. Biola is not a research university. Axe hasn’t published outside of apologetics for decades, so what little claim to expertise he may have once had has now dissipated entirely. That is a sad reflection on the standards at Biola.

---

<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 26, 2026, 10:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/298 "2026-01-26T22:11:18Z")

</div>

> [@AnEvolvedPrimate](#):
>
> Out of curiosity, have you ever taken a post-secondary science course?

Would it matter? He’s getting a free education from many people here, but nothing sinks in.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> You didn’t answer my question. And Axe isn’t just a postdoc any more, he’s the Rosa Endowed Chair of Molecular Biology at Biola University.

Which I suppose is somewhat more prestigious than being  
Grand Poobah of the Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes. But only somewhat.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> All right, I got off track. But you still need to show how OOL has made net progress on homochirality, after claiming they had a good answer for this

I did. It was described in the news article from Science I cited for you. You deny this by making up some weird definition of “progress” that only you seem to follow.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> And my reply has been that this shows getting halfway back to where they had claimed to be.

This is where I remind you that you have yet to cite any OoL researcher claiming to have solved homochirality. They seem to exist only in your fervid imagination.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> In a sword duel, if a person withdraws, it’s not typically for the reason you give.

No, but in a street fight it is considered good sportsmanship to stop punching your opponent when he has been reduced to a barely conscious pulp at your feet. Even if he claims he is winning. Or do you think Cool Hand Luke won this fight?

[![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/3X/3/c/3ce4f7a50c0999af13da5cc627305f83e64f2595.jpeg "Cool Hand Luke Boxing Scene") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXM_VskdzoI)

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> If Axe claims his results only apply for this mutated form of a protein, then yes, he should not claim this applies to proteins in general.

I’m sorry, what? But if he claims that his results for one mutated form of this one protein applies to _every_ form of _every_ protein (which he in fact does), that’s OK?

Does that really make sense to you? Wow.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But the authors in the paper you pointed to said more work needs to be done for the other nucleotides, implying their results did not apply more generally.

Exactly.

Hilariously, I suspect you don’t realize you just admitted that I have been right all along.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> As I always ask, how and where?

It beggars belief that you can be this stupid, this ignorant or this dishonest.

Anyway, here is just one example, from just a short while ago, out of many, many others I could have chosen:

> [@James Tour and his 60-day challenge](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/291):
>
> Lee, you should not take intermittent participation on my part as “withdrawal”. You have never - EVER - provided an adequate defense of Axe as it relates to my two main points. Once you come up with something that is more than referring to essays that we already know are either irrelevant or ineffective, I will comment. You haven’t to date. You should stop trying to bluff your way through this. It’s perfectly OK to state that Axe has not addressed my main points (of course - the truth is always preferable). It’s also perfectly OK to start at this point and ask questions about the aspects of this discussion you clearly do not understand.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> So how does Swamidass’ point not address the question, and so on? So again, please point to a post I did which is just a “bunch of words” that don’t address what someone said?

The very comment I am responding to know will suffice as an example. Or almost anything you have ever written on this board.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [January 26, 2026, 10:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/299 "2026-01-26T22:40:35Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> To some degree, so in order to keep abreast of the field, you have to read papers, and listen to presentations at conferences, and consult with colleagues. That’s taking things on authority.

Reading experimental and observational data is not the same as taking things on authority.

---

<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 26, 2026, 11:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/300 "2026-01-26T23:06:12Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> That was my initial claim, my reason for not reading the rest of the paper, which depended on this.

Your claim is false. You told another two lies that are falsified by that paper. And “rest of the paper” is really dishonest when you didn’t go beyond the first sentence of the Introduction.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But again, you accept nothing on authority?

I do, but I don’t pretend to understand those things at the same depth as experts do. I would never conclude that an entire scientific field is wrong based on the claims of a handful of people outside that field. That’s idiotic and mind-blowingly arrogant. That’s what you’re doing here, Gish Galloping from lie to lie.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Mercer](#):
> >
> > > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> > >
> > > I conclude you believe he is wrong, now please back that up.
> > 
> > You believe that you and he are right, now back that up.
> 
> I did mention his view about large molecules disintegrating in vents, and discussed your counterexample,

No, you did not, because you ignored all the other components to blather on about denaturation representing

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> “complex molecules go to pieces”

Which is bogus. For the third time, what happens to the polymerase?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> though I do recognize a subsequent annealing phase.

So nothing “went to pieces” at all and you don’t have a leg to stand on.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Your counter example still proves my point.

How so?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Mercer](#):
> >
> > > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> > >
> > > I did go into more detail, and saw even more detail that I didn’t mention.
> > 
> > The tiny bit you did mention shows that you don’t have a clue.
> 
> Ah. So I did provide evidence?

No, you showed a lack of understanding of undisputed high-school molecular biology.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > he said it was like nucleotides, which don’t become different molecules when they are incorporated.
> 
> That’s not all he wrote. He was perfectly clear:
> 
> > [@Mercer](#):
> >
> > > [@Rumraket](#):
> > >
> > > Technically polymers of DNA and RNA contain a phosphodiester bond, which you don’t find in the monomers. However (NMP)n is a commonly used description of polymers of RNA, in that the elongation reaction can be described as:  
> > > (NMP)n + NTP → (NMP)n+1 + PPi
> > 
> > You don’t understand that, but you pretend to, which is a violation of the Ninth Commandment.
> 
> Rumraket continued:

Nice Gish Gallop! What happened to your claim that ATP isn’t involved in RNA synthesis? That was the hilariously wrong one we were discussing.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Mercer](#):
> >
> > > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> > >
> > > And it’s not allowed to be knowledgeable in other areas than your main field?
> > 
> > You have no idea who’s knowledgeable about what, particularly since you claimed a mere postdoc is a 9/10 in his field.
> 
> You didn’t answer my question. And Axe isn’t just a postdoc any more, he’s the Rosa Endowed Chair of Molecular Biology at Biola University.

Being a postdoc at Cambridge is far above that.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Mercer](#):
> >
> > > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> > >
> > > And you implied he was wrong…
> > 
> > Another lie. I clearly stated that opinions aren’t evidence. OOL research has come a long way since Miller died 18 years ago.
> 
> Ah. Another opinion. I dismiss what you just said.

So what? You’ve dismissed everything to date except my correction of your howler about ATP synthase.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But I will ask this, what substantial OOL progress has been made in 18 years? And I’m not asking for papers, I’m asking for progress.

Progress is demonstrated in the papers you are obviously incapable of reading.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Such as membrane construction.

OOL research is not an engineering problem. Only ignorant engineers pretend that’s the case.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Tour says they still only use one lipid.

Then one or more of the following must be true:

1. Tour was lying,
2. Tour was lying when he claimed to have read the OOL papers, and/or
3. You were lying when you claimed that Tour had read them.

I vote for all three being true! In addition, because membranes aren’t limited to lipids, it’s a stupid criticism even if it was correct.

Now, if only someone _ **in this very thread** _ had cited and linked to a full-text version of a lipid-centric OOL paper that shows Tour’s claim to be false! Can you guess which one, Lee?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Mercer](#):
> >
> > So, claiming that denaturation supports your lie is yet another in a firehose of lies you’ve spewed here.
> 
> Well, it disassembles, is what I said, which confirms that large molecules don’t hold together in high temperatures.

Which is a lie. And I’m asking you, what happens to the polymerase?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Put a molecule of DNA in a hydrothermal vent, and I think more will happen, it will arguably, go to pieces.

How do the critters that live there possibly survive, then? DNA denaturation temperature is directly proportional to \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ concentration. Simple fact, but you’re not curious enough to look for it.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Mercer](#):
> >
> > Does the DNA polymerase get denatured?
> 
> I think more would happen, it wouldn’t hold together in a hydrothermal vent, it would go to pieces, per Ed Peltzer.

I don’t. What range of temperatures are present in vents, and what’s the stability of the polymerase? No opinions are involved, just measurements.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> This is what you need to refute, and even your counterexample shows DNA disassembling due to raising the temperature.

“Disassembling” is a lie and you know it.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Mercer](#):
> >
> > You just made my point by disregarding the OOL papers.
> 
> So papers are now evidence?

The primary literature _ **contains** _ evidence by definition. Not all scientific papers are primary. Is this a difficult concept for you?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But what OOL papers have I disregarded? I do try and address points people make here, especially if they point to a paper..

That’s a lie.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> To some degree, so in order to keep abreast of the field, you have to read papers, and listen to presentations at conferences, and consult with colleagues.

Correct.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> That’s taking things on authority.

It’s anything but, because for real scientists doing real science, all three involve presenting evidence. Pseudoscience depends on the targets not understanding this.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But certainly scientists also do their own experiments

The results of which they present in papers, at conferences, and in consultation with colleagues.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
> >
> > > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> > >
> > > You did pick up my analogy, and tried to refute it, and I responded. But no scientist used that analogy, to my knowledge, this was a mistaken claim you made.
> > 
> > I never claimed a scientist had used that analogy.
> 
> All right, I got off track.

That’s not how ethical people acknowledge false statements they’re called out for making.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
> >
> > Oh, that’s interesting. So, by your reasoning, when Doug Axe _ **does an experiment** _ on a mutated form of a protein, he should not claim that this tells us anything about the wild form of that protein, never mind about proteins in general.
> 
> If Axe claims his results only apply for this mutated form of a protein, then yes, he should not claim this applies to proteins in general.

Good, then we agree that the paper has zero relevance to proteins in general.

Have you even read the 2004 paper you love so much? Axe isn’t _ **claiming** _ that his results start with a mutated form of a protein, he _ **tells** _ the reader that flat out. But this, as the vast majority of all facts presented here, flies over your head, while you remain far too arrogant to admit it.

---

<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 26, 2026, 11:41pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/301 "2026-01-26T23:41:49Z")

</div>

> [@Art](#):
>
> Lee, you should not take intermittent participation on my part as “withdrawal”.

Alright, just please leave a note if you have to be away for an extended period, and I will set my timeout interval accordingly. And thanks for resuming discussion!

> [@Art](#):
>
> Once you come up with something that is more than referring to essays that we already know are either irrelevant or ineffective, I will comment. You haven’t to date.

But I don’t recall posting excerpts or referring to essays in my previous comments to you, I do recall going through your essay and presenting my points in reply.

> [@Art](#):
>
> It’s also perfectly OK to start at this point and ask questions about the aspects of this discussion you clearly do not understand.

Alright again, the forum here doesn’t seem to have a good search function, so I’ll just take a fresh run at this.

Now first of all, I think [this post](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/art-hunt-to-doug-axe-invitation-to-discuss/1660) depicts more accurately what Axe did than [this essay](https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa.html) on Panda’s Thumb. Axe wasn’t trying to measure part of the base of the wild-type enzyme, he was trying to evaluate the whole peak of the partially-disabled enzyme, as you depict in the former post. So I’ll address the former post, not the latter article.

Secondly, I don’t see why Axe needed to come up with a conversion factor from the peak in your Figure 3 to the peak in Figure 1. I don’t see what that would accomplish, to get an estimate of the percentage of functional variants generated from the wild-type enzyme, to have this along with the estimate for the disabled enzyme variants. Axe’s aim was to estimate “the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds” in general, so having two samples instead of one wouldn’t seem to be helpful or necessary.

Then you write that “Anyone who has plated transformed E. coli on ampicillin or other beta-lactams knows that this isn’t a very quantitative method, and certainly not suited to quantitatively distinguishing enzyme variants with differing activities.” Yet [here](https://opentrons.com/applications/sample-plating) I read: “Volume Accuracy: Ensuring the precise volume of the sample is critical for certain quantitative analyses.” Which implies you have to be very careful, but it can be done. Similarly [here](https://asm.org/asm/media/protocol-images/serial-dilution-protocols.pdf?ext=.pdf): “The standard plate count is a reliable method for enumerating bacteria and fungi.” They continue: “Accuracy in quantitation is determined by accurate pipette use and adequate agitation of dilution tubes.” Implying quantification can be done accurately.

Then you state: “More to the point of the JMB paper, Axe’s [BioComplexity paper](http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2015.2) shows that, in cases where enzyme activity may be very low, this assay cannot reliably distinguish between low and zero enzyme activity. This is very important – I believe the conditions used by Axe in the 2004 JMB paper cannot distinguish between mutants with low but significant activities and those with no activity. In other words, the accuracy of Axe’s estimates in the 2004 paper cannot be known, and he may be wrong by tens and tens of orders of magnitude or more.”

So I went through this paper, and couldn’t find any statement along the lines of “where enzyme activity may be very low, this assay cannot reliably distinguish between low and zero enzyme activity.” Could you quote the relevant 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 27, 2026, 12:09am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/302 "2026-01-27T00:09:12Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > And my reply has been that this shows getting halfway back to where they had claimed to be.
> 
> This is where I remind you that you have yet to cite any OoL researcher claiming to have solved homochirality. They seem to exist only in your fervid imagination.

I did find and post a link, but this forum’s search function is not very effective. So [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality) is an excerpt from Wikipedia about this: “Some of these models propose three distinct steps: a mirror-symmetry breaking mechanism to create a minute enantiomeric imbalance (enantiomeric excess or ee) from a racemic mixture, subsequent [chiral amplification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_amplification "Chiral amplification") to achieve a larger ee or full homochirality (i.e., ee=100%), and finally chiral transmission/propagation to transfer chirality from one set of molecules to another.[[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality#cite_note-:0-9)[[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality#cite_note-:1-10) “

And here are the references:

Ozturk, S. Furkan; Sasselov, Dimitar D. (2025-08-26). [“Life’s homochirality: Across a prebiotic network”](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2505126122). _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_. **122** (34) e2505126122. [doi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doi_(identifier) "Doi (identifier)"):[10.1073/pnas.2505126122](https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.2505126122). [PMC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMC_(identifier) "PMC (identifier)") [12403148](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12403148). [PMID](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMID_(identifier) "PMID (identifier)") [40828029](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40828029).

Ozturk, S. Furkan; Sasselov, Dimitar D.; Sutherland, John D. (2023-08-14). [“The central dogma of biological homochirality: How does chiral information propagate in a prebiotic network?”](https://pubs.aip.org/jcp/article/159/6/061102/2905827/The-central-dogma-of-biological-homochirality-How). _The Journal of Chemical Physics_. **159** (6). [doi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doi_(identifier) "Doi (identifier)"):[10.1063/5.0156527](https://doi.org/10.1063%2F5.0156527). [ISSN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISSN_(identifier) "ISSN (identifier)") [0021-9606](https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0021-9606). [PMC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMC_(identifier) "PMC (identifier)") [7615580](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7615580). [PMID](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMID_(identifier) "PMID (identifier)") [37551802](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37551802).

So it seems your imagination is what is active here?

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > If Axe claims his results only apply for this mutated form of a protein, then yes, he should not claim this applies to proteins in general.
> 
> I’m sorry, what? But if he claims that his results for one mutated form of this one protein applies to _every_ form of _every_ protein (which he in fact does), that’s OK?
> 
> Does that really make sense to you?

Well, the reviewers evidently thought it did! And we should also throw out these papers? (referenced [here](https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/axe-2004-and-the-evolution-of-protein-folds/) in Uncommon Descent)

”As I noted in my previous post, [Axe’s 2004 JMB paper](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723) is not an isolated result. I cited a number of papers which attained similar results with respect to the rarity of functional domains within sequence space. [In one study](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6829/abs/410715a0.html), published in _Nature_in 2001 by Keefe & Szostak, it was documented that more than a million million random sequences were required in order to stumble upon a functioning ATP-binding protein, a protein substantially smaller than the transmembrane protein specified by the gene, T-urf13, discussed by Hunt. In addition, I noted, a similar result was obtained by [Taylor _et al._ in their 2001 PNAS paper](http://www.pnas.org/content/98/19/10596.full). This paper examined the AroQ-type chorismate mutase, and arrived at a similarly low prevalence (giving a value of 1 in 10^24 for the 93 amino acid enzyme, but, when adjusted to reflect a residue of the same length as the 150-amino-acid section analysed from Beta-lactamase, yields a result of 1 in 10^53). Yet another paper by [Sauer and Reidhaar-Olson (1990)](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2199970) reported on _“the high level of degeneracy in the information that specifies a particular protein fold,”_ which it gives as 1 in 10^63.”

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > But the authors in the paper you pointed to said more work needs to be done for the other nucleotides, implying their results did not apply more generally.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Hilariously, I suspect you don’t realize you just admitted that I have been right all along.

Eh? If their results did not apply more generally, yes, that was my point, you can’t claim the homochirality problem has been solved, as you seemed to be claiming.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Anyway, here is just one example, from just a short while ago, out of many, many others I could have chosen

Art Hunt is back! And I am resuming my conversation with him. This does not show that Axe was refuted, the discussion continues.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > So how does Swamidass’ point not address the question, and so on? So again, please point to a post I did which is just a “bunch of words” that don’t address what someone said?
> 
> The very comment I am responding to know will suffice as an example. Or almost anything you have ever written on this board.

I assume you meant “now” instead of “know”? But you don’t address how Swamidass’ post does not address the question, nor do I see how asking for “how and where?” does not respond to what you said.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564.md?page=14)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564.md?page=16)