# James Tour and his 60-day challenge **URL:** \ **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:** 2

**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:** [December 19, 2025, 5:18pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/21 "2025-12-19T17:18:04Z")

> [@Rumraket](#): > > Protocell to me seems to imply something either/a combination of early, first, simple, and more primitive. That’s fine, I realize scientists know what this means. My point is that most people don’t, and thus it’s a misleading term. As I have heard, most people believe scientists have created life in the lab! I wonder why. No, I actually don’t wonder why… ---

> [@Rumraket](#): > > > [@lee\_merrill](#): > > > > The OOL researchers have produced nothing like a cell membrane, was Tour’s point, which still clearly stands. Where are the ion channels? Without them a cell dies, they are not optional. > > On the contrary. Protocells are thought to have used fatty acid membranes which are semi-permeable\*, and in extant protocell models therefore ion-channels (or other forms of proteins that can transport molecules across the membrane) weren’t necessary to exchange materials with the environment. No, semi-permeable membranes are not ion channels! They are not selective, and are therefore useless, or even dangerous. And if on the other hand, the membrane is such that nothing comes in or goes out, such proto-cells are not anything like a cell, they don’t deserve the proto-cell label. Call them a vesicle if you like, but in such a tiny, static environment, it’s not evident how any progress or development can occur. ---

**Author:** ![Sam](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/sam/32/11437_2.png) [@Sam](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Sam)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2025, 5:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/23 "2025-12-19T17:38:55Z")

> [@AllenWitmerMiller](#): > > James Tour makes demands and “assigns” tasks to various people and is complaining that they’ve ignored him… Complaining? Or informing? It seems Tour never had the least expectation that the challenge could be met. ---

**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:** [December 19, 2025, 5:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/24 "2025-12-19T17:51:54Z")

> [@lee\_merrill](#): > > That’s fine, I realize scientists know what this means. My point is .. therefore refuted and of no value. > [@lee\_merrill](#): > > No, semi-permeable membranes are not ion channels! They are not selective, and are therefore useless, or even dangerous. LMAO. Tell me you know literally nothing about his subject without telling me, the quintessential post. Fatty acid (and related molecules) membranes have been directly experimentally demonstrated to have selective permeability. That’s why they’re classified as _semi_-permeable rather than just …permeable. ---

**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:** [December 19, 2025, 9:02pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/25 "2025-12-19T21:02:41Z")

> [@Rumraket](#): > > Fatty acid (and related molecules) membranes have been directly experimentally demonstrated to have selective permeability. That’s why they’re classified as _semi_-permeable rather than just …permeable. I stand corrected. But my (Tour’s!) point still stands, that a cell of any type requires ion channels, they are not optional, and pointing to semipermeable membranes doesn’t address this. If the ion channels fail, the ion concentration gets off, and the cell explodes. > [@Rumraket](#): > > and in extant protocell models therefore ion-channels (or other forms of proteins that can transport molecules across the membrane) weren’t necessary to exchange materials with the environment. I repeat that such membranes are not selective like ion channels are. How can you say that semipermeable membranes can replace them? That’s absurd. A cell without them dies, and any self-respecting proto-cell should die too. Otherwise, as I mentioned, let’s call them just vesicles. ---

**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:** [December 19, 2025, 9:29pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/26 "2025-12-19T21:29:30Z")

> [@lee\_merrill](#): > > I stand corrected. But my (Tour’s!) point still stands, that a cell of any type requires ion channels Cool assertion bro. I guess the entire field of origin of life research just has to stop thinking that isn’t right. Tour says so and that just.. stands. > [@lee\_merrill](#): > > If the ion channels fail, the ion concentration gets off, and the cell explodes. You’re probably describing something like osmolysis, where the ion channel failing means it fails to transport ions and water back out, and therefore the cell maintains a concentration that is too high compared to the extracellular environment. The cell then takes in too much water by osmosis, internal pressure builds, and the membrane eventually ruptures. But what if the membrane is leaky to small molecules and water? Then the natural tendency for concentrations to equilibrate between the inside and outside (basic diffusion) automatically relieves any such tension in case there is any difference in concentration between the inside and outside of the protocell. In other words, the very leakiness of a fatty acid membrane is what enables it as a plausible precursor of a modern phospholipid membrane, but whout the advanced transport machinery. Gee it’s almost like the people who work in this field have reasons for positing the models they do. > [@lee\_merrill](#): > > I repeat that such membranes are not selective like ion channels are. How can you say that semipermeable membranes can replace them? I’m not saying that. In fact the models being pursued posit the reverse history of that. That it was the fatty acid membranes that got replaced by modern cell membranes. The fatty acid membranes were certainly less capable than modern membranes that have transport proteins, and therefore could not replace modern membranes upon which extant cells now depend (a modern cell could not live with a fatty acid membrane). But the idea is they were good enough for more primitive, less capable cells. Protocells. > [@lee\_merrill](#): > > That’s absurd. I’m sure lots of things you know nothing about sound incomprehensible when you’ve had them taught to you by James Tour. ---

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2025, 5:04am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/27 "2025-12-20T05:04:52Z")

> [@lee\_merrill](#): > > > [@Mercer](#): > > > > > [@lee\_merrill](#): > > > > > > The problem is that they are not observing anything! > > > > How would you know? > > They didn’t answer Tour’s challenge, for one. What obligates them to do so, instead of publishing in the primary literature that you don’t read? > [@lee\_merrill](#): > > > [@Mercer](#): > > > > > [@lee\_merrill](#): > > > > > > They are not making progress. > > > > How would you know? > > That’s easy, what progress has been made since Miller-Urey in 1953? Lots. I’m asking how YOU determined that there has been none. It seems that you lack the integrity to look before making claims. > [@lee\_merrill](#): > > > [@Mercer](#): > > > > OK, _ **I** _ challenge _ **you** _ to explain how you know the state of OoL research. > > James Tour is an expert in synthesis. He is, but so what? What does synthesis have to do with it? > [@lee\_merrill](#): > > Should I trust you instead? Sure. I’m fascinated by your apparent fear of challenging my qualifications. > [@lee\_merrill](#): > > What progress has been made since Miller-Urey? Your claim, your evidentiary burden. So are you tacitly admitting to violating the Ninth Commandment? > [@lee\_merrill](#): > > Do you have any answer to Tour’s challenge? It’s stupid. It’s not how science is done. > [@lee\_merrill](#): > > > [@Mercer](#): > > > > as well as your lack of response to @Dan_Eastwood’s pointing out your quote mining. > > Again, what is the different meaning when context is included? Your lack of response speaks volumes. ---

> [@lee\_merrill](#): > > I stand corrected. But my (Tour’s!) point still stands, How can that be, when you offered your false claim to support that point? ---

**Author:** ![Sam](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/sam/32/11437_2.png) [@Sam](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Sam)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2025, 5:09am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/29 "2025-12-21T05:09:13Z")

> [@AllenWitmerMiller](#): > > Tour’s argument seems to be “This is a really really really difficult investigation. So it must be impossible!” How honest is that? Do you get all of your information about Tour and his challenge from the Peaceful Science crowd? Have you listened to him? Even when he met with Lee Cronin at Harvard, the one OOL guy who replied to his challenge? Could Tour’s view be more nearly the opposite of what you suggest his view is? [![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/3X/1/6/16e1094fae2e0ae8be316cf53ff3c1190f71faca.jpeg "Dr. Lee Cronin vs Dr. James Tour Debate at Harvard Cambridge Faculty Roundtable the Origin of Life") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus&t=2142) [![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/3X/3/c/3c276ad4c86fb33a75336d94000c5a94f1e7c2ee.jpeg "Debunking Professor Dave: Steve Benner, Part 01 - Dr. Tour UNMASKS Double-Standards") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtitTE2BavU&t=1250) There was a line in an email to Bruce Lipshutz (one of the 10) where Tour says, “I cannot as a scientist say that we will never solve this problem by naturalistic terms. I cannot, as a scientist, I can’t say that. I cannot say what could never be done. Maybe in a few hundred years or in a thousand years, people will have figured this out. But what I can say is that we’re nowhere close to figuring it out. And you might say, how do you know we’re nowhere close? Because the more we learn about a cell the more complex it becomes like this interactome thing.” The sentiment of that last sentence is evident in many, many fields. It is described here with no theist/atheist inuendo. [https://youtu.be/\_WQDFjv2ikA?si=vFpsxRz2pauyp4b0&t=427](https://youtu.be/_WQDFjv2ikA?si=vFpsxRz2pauyp4b0&t=427) ---

**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:** [December 21, 2025, 10:43pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/30 "2025-12-21T22:43:29Z")

> [@Sam](#): > > Have you listened to him? Yes. That’s how we know that life’s impossibility really is the take-home message. Before we go on, let me ask you this question: Do you think science will find a naturalistic solution to the origin of life? Let’s just say within a million years from now, will science have found a good natural explanation for the origin of life? ---

**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:** [December 21, 2025, 10:43pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/31 "2025-12-21T22:43:47Z")

How about you @lee_merrill, do you think that science will solve the origin of life and find a naturalistic explanation for the emergence of the first living cell? Do you consider that even remotely plausible? I think I know what you’re going to say, and I think the same thing about Sam here. I think you’ve watched Tour’s presentations and you got the message just fine. He didn’t have to say the literal words for the both of you to get his message. ---

**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:** [December 21, 2025, 10:44pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/32 "2025-12-21T22:44:08Z")

> [@Sam](#): > > "And you might say, how do you know we’re nowhere close? Because the more we learn about a cell the more complex it becomes like this interactome thing.” And you cite that in Tour’s _defense_? That passage show exactly the sort of confusion between abiogenesis and evolution that one would expect from the most ignorant Young Earth Creationist. ---

> [@Sam](#): > > The sentiment of that last sentence is evident in many, many fields. It is described here with no theist/atheist inuendo. [https://youtu.be/\_WQDFjv2ikA?si=vFpsxRz2pauyp4b0&t=427](https://youtu.be/_WQDFjv2ikA?si=vFpsxRz2pauyp4b0&t=427) I don’t think you are accurately understanding what that guy is saying. I am sure, if you asked him, he would agree that, by learning of the Peranakans, his knowledge of SE Asian cultures was increased and, if his goal was to learn as much as he could about that topic, he was now closer to achieving that goal. You disagree? ---

**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:** [December 22, 2025, 4:36am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/34 "2025-12-22T04:36:50Z")

> [@Rumraket](#): > > But what if the membrane is leaky to small molecules and water? Then the natural tendency for concentrations to equilibrate between the inside and outside (basic diffusion) automatically relieves any such tension in case there is any difference in concentration between the inside and outside of the protocell. In other words, the very leakiness of a fatty acid membrane is what enables it as a plausible precursor of a modern phospholipid membrane, but whout the advanced transport machinery. One problem, though, this posits that the outside concentrations are fine inside the cell. That’s not the case in real cells, that’s why ion channels are also called ion pumps. So again, let’s stop calling them protocells, a leaky membrane cannot be “good enough for more primitive, less capable cells.” Another thought, the scenario for protocells, as I understand it, is that a lipid layer enclosed some stuff, so no need for transport to equilibrium, it enclosed the surrounding fluid. But there are further problems, what is the point of ion channels? To maintain an ion gradient, keeping the cell from exploding is important, but it’s not the main reason to have them. And why is an ion gradient needed? To make ATP. And why is ATP needed? To have energy for the cell machinery to work. So all this is missing in “protocells”. It’s like I say to you I have made a “protocar.” Only it doesn’t have an engine, it doesn’t have a gas tank or fuel. It does have a control box! Like the RNA molecule we hope got subsumed in the protocell. But it’s not connected to anything, it doesn’t actually do any controlling. You can get in it and out of it, and it can roll down a hill. But it’s not something on the way to being a car. ---

**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:** [December 22, 2025, 4:36am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/35 "2025-12-22T04:36:58Z")

> [@Mercer](#): > > > [@lee\_merrill](#): > > > > They didn’t answer Tour’s challenge, for one. > > What obligates them to do so, instead of publishing in the primary literature that you don’t read? Certainly they are not obligated to respond, but it does indicate that they cannot answer Tour’s challenge. The fact that no one here has volunteered a response also indicates that. > [@Mercer](#): > > > [@lee\_merrill](#): > > > > That’s easy, what progress has been made since Miller-Urey in 1953? > > Lots. I’m asking how YOU determined that there has been none. It seems that you lack the integrity to look before making claims. James Tour has looked, he’s qualified to read their papers, and he did so, that’s what got him started speaking out, as I recall. > [@Mercer](#): > > > [@lee\_merrill](#): > > > > James Tour is an expert in synthesis. > > He is, but so what? What does synthesis have to do with it? A lot! When people start investigating how organic structures could have formed by natural processes, we can look into what reactions might be plausible. Such as the formose reaction for sugar, Tour was saying for years that it doesn’t do the job, and recently an OOL researcher [confirmed this](https://www.scripps.edu/news-and-events/press-room/2025/20250428-krishnamurthy-prebiotic-sugars.html). > [@Mercer](#): > > > [@lee\_merrill](#): > > > > Again, what is the different meaning when context is included? > > Your lack of response speaks volumes. If you made a claim, and you did, you need to support it, is my point. ---

**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:** [December 22, 2025, 4:37am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/36 "2025-12-22T04:37:04Z")

> [@Rumraket](#): > > How about you @lee_merrill, do you think that science will solve the origin of life and find a naturalistic explanation for the emergence of the first living cell? Do you consider that even remotely plausible? I don’t rule it out, people used to think that powered flight was impossible, or that no one could travel to the moon. But OOL researchers are not doing themselves credit, by their unsupported claims of progress, when the end task, making a cell (as Sam said, confirmed by Tour) is being seen to be more and more difficult. ---

**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:** [December 22, 2025, 4:37am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/37 "2025-12-22T04:37:12Z")

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#): > > > [@Sam](#): > > > > "And you might say, how do you know we’re nowhere close? Because the more we learn about a cell the more complex it becomes like this interactome thing.” > > And you cite that in Tour’s _defense_? That passage show exactly the sort of confusion between abiogenesis and evolution that one would expect from the most ignorant Young Earth Creationist. But how do you get an initial cell without an interactome? This is a matter for abiogenesis, how can you say it is not? That’s why Tour’s fifth challenge was “assembly of a living cell”. That is, let’s give you all the components of a cell, can you put them together and have it work? That’s going to require solving the interactome problem… ---

**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:** [December 22, 2025, 5:32pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/38 "2025-12-22T17:32:55Z")

> [@lee\_merrill](#): > > I don’t rule it out How remarkably open-minded of you. So you don’t think the subject is of any apologetic value, and is, to you, unrelated to the question of God’s existence? ---

**Author:** ![Sam](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/sam/32/11437_2.png) [@Sam](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Sam)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2025, 5:33pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/39 "2025-12-22T17:33:11Z")

> [@Rumraket](#): > > > [@Sam](#): > > > > Have you listened to him? > > Yes. That’s how we know that life’s impossibility really is the take-home message. > > Before we go on, let me ask you this question: Do you think science will find a naturalistic solution to the origin of life? Let’s just say within a million years from now, will science have found a good natural explanation for the origin of life? Notice what just happened. I asked @AllenWitmerMiller whether he had listened to Tour. A different participant answered _for him_, speaking in the collective — “we know” — and in doing so simply repeated the same factual error: attributing to Tour a claim of impossibility that he explicitly and repeatedly denies in his own words. What is striking is not that this happened, but how predictable it was. A clear, easily verifiable correction was offered, yet instead of anyone on Allen’s side (team) acknowledging it or even inviting him to correct his misstatement, the group closed ranks and doubled down. That behavior stands in obvious tension with the stated goals of this forum — charitable reading, accuracy, and genuine inquiry. The follow-up question about my personal expectations for the future of science is a red herring. Whether _I_ think the origin of life will be explained within a million years has no bearing on whether Tour argues impossibility — which he explicitly denies. That issue needs to be resolved first. If correcting an ally’s plainly incorrect summary is considered too transparent or too honest, then the problem on display is not scientific uncertainty but the dynamics of alignment within the discussion. ---

**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:** [December 22, 2025, 5:33pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/40 "2025-12-22T17:33:32Z")

> [@lee\_merrill](#): > > One problem, though, this posits that the outside concentrations are fine inside the cell. That’s not the case in real cells, that’s why ion channels are also called ion pumps. So again, let’s stop calling them protocells, a leaky membrane cannot be “good enough for more primitive, less capable cells.” Great, thank you. I will make sure to inform the field of abiogenesis research that some random internet creationis has insisted a leaky membrane cannot be good enough. > [@lee\_merrill](#): > > Another thought, the scenario for protocells, as I understand it, is that a lipid layer enclosed some stuff, so no need for transport to equilibrium, it enclosed the surrounding fluid. Your understanding isn’t correct I’m sorry to say. > [@lee\_merrill](#): > > But there are further problems, what is the point of ion channels? To maintain an ion gradient, keeping the cell from exploding is important, but it’s not the main reason to have them. And why is an ion gradient needed? To make ATP. And why is ATP needed? To have energy for the cell machinery to work. The machinery that _uses_ ATP, yes. But not all metabolic processes require ATP. Btw the fatty acid membrane is permeable to ATP. That molecule is small enough to cross the membrane. There are various models of early cells. In some of them the monomers of RNA and proteins (NTPs, amino acids) are synthesized outside cells by the environment, but can cross through he fatty acid membrane (they can in fact do that, this part [has been empirically demonstrated](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07018)), and are used up in polymerization reactions inside the protocells. > [@lee\_merrill](#): > > So all this is missing in “protocells”. So is the machinery that depends on using ATP as an energy currency. At least initially. That’s the model. [Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564.md?page=1) [Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564.md?page=3)