# 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:** 1\
**Showing post:** 300

<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.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564)._