He is diametrically opposed to reading for comprehension. Once again we discover that to do apologetics you must work in opposition to truth and charity.
1 Like
Ahem, the series of posts that led to this one of mine did in fact accomplish what you are now pretending it didn’t, which you didn’t get back to:
My challenge is unanswerable. I demonstrate with simple logic that if Axe’s own argument with sentence readability actually succeeds in undermining the claim that Axe should have tested the wild-type enzyme rather than a specifically constructed temperature sensitive variant, then that also undermines Axe’s own experiment as he carried it out in practice. In which case, by Axe’s own argument, Axe’s own experiment is invalid and the result can not be trusted.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t both think that Axe’s response to objection 3 is valid AND that Axe’s own experiment was performed correctly.
Ultimately this comes back to @Art Hunt’s question to Axe about the request for a conversion factor between the two hills in his figures, which Axe never provides.
As in, we have been given no reason to think Axe has actually determined that the level of mutational sensitivity his enzyme exhibits in relation to the activity of the enzyme (which he doesn’t measure), is giving the correct fraction of functional serine beta-lactamase folds in protein sequence space.
5 Likes
I strongly suspect that Axe determined that it gave a much larger fraction than he desired using the enzyme assays that he obviously knows how to do, at least when supervised.
Despite all of those allegedly awesome points, all of those papers have stood the test of time, no? Have any been retracted? Have any been the subjects of letters to the editor?
Isn’t that the criterion you were reduced to offering in support of Axe?
See the above quoted exchange, you are getting off track, the “home run” analogy was mine, and you never challenged me to provide an example of scientists claiming to have hit a “home run”.
The first challenge I answered was your claimed that the homochirality problem was now solved, when I pointed out that they were only halfway there, and made the “home run” analogy, you started disputing the analogy. I have repeatedly responded to this second challenge, showing the analogy was apt. This is what actually happened, and again, I did not make up some other challenge.
What about what Axe actually wrote? “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. … Two things have happened since then. One is that my 2004 JMB paper has, as Hunt predicted, been cited in support of intelligent design in several prominent places, and the other is that Hunt’s finished blog piece [2] has become the favored argument against using my paper in support of ID.
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 audience at Biola University.”
This is what I have been saying, and what I just said.
It would actually seem foolish to expect you to demonstrate that Hunt addressed my points! Alas.
And I pointed out the research is still in progress on Levinthal’s paradox, it’s not solved yet.
I agree! That’s my view, too, that’s what I meant.
I did actually know about ATP/ADP before coming here, I did know how cells use it, enough to say that mere incorporation of ATP into a chain is not what cells do with ATP (which point you have not refuted), and yes I did learn here that ATP could diffuse across fatty acid membranes, and I still dispute that mere incorporation of ATP into a chain could reasonably be called “using ATP” like cells do.
The interactome is! But not this number.
That is certainly not my view, I expect it is not his, either. His challenge was to have the cell work again, which implies some working interactome (my point). The absurdly huge number of possible protein-protein interactomes in a yeast cell gives some idea of the scale of the problem, as does the fact that interactome changes can result in disease, as does what Tour notes, that interactome research is not being done by OOL researchers. The problem appears to be too hard, good results are unlikely.
But in your scenario, you don’t know which interactions will occur. All interactions, all interactomes are real possibilities, so you can’t discount most of them by saying they won’t occur. Certainly most interactions won’t occur, I agree. But we still have to consider them, and not rule most of them out.
Well, we’ve strayed from Tour’s challenge, which was not about OOL researchers coming up with a scenario for the generation of the interactome. It was about reassembling a cell, and making it work again. Can you do that?
But to your point, how can you show that incorporation of new molecules and selection can search this vast space in any reasonable amount of time?
Actually Tour doesn’t think OOL will eventually be solved, he just doesn’t rule that out. His point is that we haven’t made progress in OOL research, though it is repeatedly claimed that we have. You can hear this on every street corner, and Tour says “It’s a scam!”
Can’t be bothered responding to the rest of your nonsense, I’ll just laugh at this one specifically.
L O L
Thank you.
2 Likes
I do discuss such issues, to examine my conclusions, this is not a faith issue for me. I put reply with your question, why don’t people here address Peltzer’s points? Why don’t you? Let’s examine the evidence, it’s your turn, if you are qualified to do so.
What qualified people say about the topic under discussion is indeed evidence. Certainly it’s not avoiding evidence.
Glad to learn! But you still have not told me how hydrolysis enters the picture, when ATP is simply incorporated into a chain.
That’s Peltzer’s considered opinion, not some assertion I made. Evidently you have no answer to this? This is just an insult. “He who throws mud is losing ground.”
Not if they go to pieces in the ambient temperature!
I don’t know, and how does this have relevance to OOL scenarios in hydrothermal vents?
I asked Hunt to address this, and please show me where he explained how Axe’s responses to four common objections do not address the issues, and so on?
This is just an assertion without evidence, was someone implying we shouldn’t do this, earlier?
No, ”thought” has a range of meanings, you can reference someone’s conclusions in this way, that is what I meant.
Yes, a range of meanings, surely you don’t think (in the sense of conclude) that each word in English has just one meaning? And I deduce (or think!) that the reviewers did attend to Axe’s lab procedures, and if so, concluded (or thought) that they were reasonable.
I was stating a principle, I agree that selecting reviewers is not a perfect process. But it’s not only an ideal, it’s probably true.
What qualified people say about the topic under discussion is opinion. Informed opinion, perhaps, but still opinion.
Listening to people talk rather that looking at the things they are talking about is avoiding evidence.
Dory is as incompetent as ever.
3 Likes
It’s the first example I came up with, actually, and it seemed to illustrate the point quite well. And are you saying the contents match the headline? They obviously don’t. Speaking of “life molecules” indicates you are about to discuss life molecules in general, it is not stupidity to think this.
And my reply has been, that if you claim the problem has been addressed, and then your solution is shown to be wrong, and then you get half-way to where you had claimed to be, but just with RNA nucleotides, not with “life molecules”, you are not making net progress.
Exactly…
But still, based on what was said, there is no need to move at all. And where are you going to get energy for needed transformations, in cold seawater? And yes, there are temperature gradients at the vents themselves, but you can’t stay near the parts which will destroy the OOL molecules, which need to develop. The molecules will move around, and if they move to the cold seawater, they won’t develop, and if they move to the hotter parts, they will go to pieces. And if they don’t need to move far, then the cold seawater and the hotter parts of the vents are not far.
In place in the hot parts of the vent? I don’t think so.
I actually like discovery! Tour does, too, he has many patents (here are some of his recent ones) and many papers. And I recommend to you, who also like the prospect of discovery, to watch Peltzer’s presentation, and learn what he says, I expect it will be new, and he might make some good points.
It clearly is. Otherwise you wouldn’t be afraid of the evidence.
They’re nonsense.
Why hasn’t Peltzer written any letters to the editors of journals that publish these papers?
I am. I have measured protein stability. Has Peltzer? Is Peltzer qualified? “Chemistry” isn’t specific enough if you know anything about chemistry.
No, it is not, because you have zero basis for assessing their alleged qualifications.
Certainly it is.
No, you aren’t. That’s a lie, as well as this claim:
You don’t have a clue.
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.
You are asserting that Peltzer’s opinion is supported by evidence, which you avoid. Where did Peltzer publish this opinion, supported by the evidence?
If you bothered to look up PCR, you could answer both questions easily. What’s the temperature range of PCR? Do any of the molecules involved “go to pieces”?
Why are you so afraid to learn more?
And he did, in detail. Stop lying.
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!
You know nothing of their conclusions either. You’re still just lying.
Then:
You were stating it as fact and you were caught lying yet again.
2 Likes
This is such an obvious point, is why I think who said it doesn’t really matter. You confirmed this in a recent post! Surely you remember what you said.
Here is your answer:
Saying the challenge is invalid does not answer it, of course. You are saying “There’s no need to answer the challenge, because it’s invalid”. That’s different. My reply to you saying it’s invalid, was and is, if the researchers in their lab, using all their equipment and experience, cannot produce a working interactome in the lab, what chance does nature have to do this? On early earth? And additionally, why haven’t the OOL researchers responding by saying “the fifth challenge is invalid”?
So no, you all haven’t won.
If you say that thermodynamically unfavored interactions are not real, then yes, that does seem to be what you are saying, you’re saying they won’t occur.
But pointing to papers, and not producing the relevant equations, is not responding specifically, that’s what was claimed, he did not respond specifically.
Every paper people have pointed to in this thread has not turned out to answer the challenge, though. Please point to one paper that has indeed answered a challenge Tour posed, either a paper mentioned here, or elsewhere. Or a video of Farina’s, preferably one Tour has not responded to, otherwise I will ask you to address Tour’s response.
Specifics, please? And you are the biochemist, and Farina is not, I would like you to show how one or more of Tour’s response videos have misunderstandings and misinformation. If Tour’s videos are thick with these, this should not be difficult.
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.
I think you are the one making wild claims, though, can you point to posts, specifically?
You keep making this complaint, without addressing what I say in response. My response being that the OOL researchers (specifically those who were challenged) should do as you all have done, and point to the papers where the challenges have been met. Surely the researchers are abreast of the field, and the would not need to put their lives on hold, or their work, to do this.
And no one has to respond to every article written criticizing their work, especially if (as you admit) Axe did respond to Hunt and his initial blog post on Panda’s Thumb. And especially if Axe’s methodology was deemed acceptable by the reviewers, it would seem unlikely that it had “severe, specific and legitimate concerns”. And even more, if you all haven’t been able to show and defend such concerns in this thread. I keep challenging people here to point me to one purported problem that has gone unaddressed, for which the ID people here have had no good answer.
I am. You even admit no researcher has responded, and I again point out that no researcher has stated that one or more of Tour’s challenges are invalid.
Did you miss this, in the thread you referenced?
And I did discuss Hunt’s 2018 post with him in this thread, actually. And Hunt left off replying, as far as I can tell.
To me this statement more than anything highlights the fundamental disconnect that is occurring in these discussions.
I wonder if you’re viewing science the way one might view apologetics.
3 Likes
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.
Ah. I am vanquished! I am refuted…
So I looked it up, and the description there involves ATP to ADP, which I knew about already, nothing about incorporation into a chain, without changing ATP. So my question stands.
Here is one paper Peltzer was involved in, on the contents of hydrothermal vents and cold seep systems, and here is an interview where he gives reasons the hydrothermal vent origin of life molecules is implausible, if you’re not inclined to watch the video I posted. I didn’t find a paper about his opinion on hydrothermal vent OOL, but he does have expertise in hydrothermal vents and their contents.
It appears they do! From WIkipedia: “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, or denaturation, of the double-stranded DNA template by breaking the hydrogen bonds between complementary bases, yielding two single-stranded DNA molecules.”
Apparently, he didn’t, since it appears you can’t point me to a link where he did that.
But I’ve given a number of reasons that Axe is well-qualified, and evidence his work has held up.
I have already quoted the exact comment where I did just that. I am not doing it again. If you don’t mind being publicly exposed as a liar, that is not my problem.
I made no such claim.
What about it? Art Hunt and others have pointed out serious methodological shortcomings in his paper that completely invalidate his central claim to have determined the proportion of proteins in his study that have beta-lactamase activity. All Axe did was make some silly analogy to words in a sentence. @Rumraket has already explained that, not only is the analogy inapt, but if it was apt it would invalidate Axe’s own conclusions.
You have been unable to refute this.
Yes. And, even if it didn’t, it was not an OoL scientist who wrote the headline. I repeat: If this is really the only kind of example you can scrape up, then it hardly confirms the sweeping and inflammatory accusations Tour is making. He owes everyone in the field of OoL research a humble apology.
Of course, since that is not something that actually happened, your claim is worthless.
Well, maybe Hunt as better sense than I do when it comes to debating with dishonest, ignorant people.
You still insist that Axe accurately measured the proportion of proteins in his study that had beta-lactaimase activity, correct? That tells us all we need to know about your honesty and intelligence.
What is wrong with dozens of answers you have already been given?
I did not deny that your wrote lots of lies and idiotic claims that you seem to believe, incorrectly, were meaningful responses. That is not what I asked for.
3 Likes
As I have pointed out, most of what we believe is based on receiving something on authority, ultimately, it’s based on what qualified people have said. Have you examined inscriptions on coins which prove Caesar existed? If so, how do you know the coins aren’t fakes? How do you know the Latin words in the inscriptions mean what you say they mean? And so on. 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.
You’re claiming that he is knowledgable about much more than that. Your moving of the goalposts there is further evidence of dishonest intent.
You didn’t go into any depth, predictably. You’re afraid to.
If you didn’t know that it’s what we were referring to by “hydrolysis,” you don’t know.
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 gave a detailed description that you predictably ignored.
There are some obvious ways to look it up if you were even mildly curious, but those seem to be beyond your courage. You’re hopelessly and aggressively ignorant, combining that with a toxic cocktail of ego and dishonesty.
Which has nothing to do with OOL.
Why should I care? He’s not an expert and unlike you, I’m a biochemist and examine the evidence for myself.
Again, so what? Your touting him as an expert on OOL is deeply dishonest.
No, it doesn’t!
Then what happens? What happens to the polymerase at what temperature?
I can. You’d simply ignore it and continue to lie.
None of them hold up to seconds of scrutiny.
None whatsoever. I note that you disregard the same type of evidence WRT OOL. Why the blatant hypocrisy?
2 Likes
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.
Why then did you post the paper?
Actually, Rumraket did not respond to my latest post on this. I made a reply to his latest point, which was not addressed.
They certainly don’t match! Two out of four RNA nucleotides is not arguably about “life molecules” in general. And any editor in Science, who presumably read the paper, should be able to summarize it accurately.
Um, I repeat, this was the first example that came up, and I thought it good enough to illustrate the point.
I think the best confirmation of Tour’s claims is that no one has refuted them. Especially his challenges this thread is about, going without answers, notably in papers people have presented here.
That’s what you posted said, though, two RNA nucleotides of four had a possible path now. Nothing about all the life molecules that need to be homochiral.
Yes, and accepting the implications of his paper seems both honest and intelligent, until someone refutes him.
Um, that’s not an answer, not even one answer.
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…