James Tour and the Origin of Life

[Faizal_Ali]

@r_speir

Is this true?

It is as far from true as anything can be.

Just one example:

https://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm#:~:text=A%20powerful%20source%20of%20evidence,layers%20that%20corroborate%20one%20another.

[Dan_Eastwood]

I’m seeing a lot of tit-for-tat comments. Please slow down and try to offer more substantial discussion … or is it just time to close comments?

I’m holding off on some comments approval is case anyone would like to edit? (hint)

/fnord

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@Faizal_Ali

@thoughtful

Agree with the first part,

Huh? Haven’t you been arguing just the opposite point with me?

@T.j_Runyon

But you just made it clear to @Faizal_Ali you do not accept this and were demanding evidence for his claim that biblical scholars claim they aren’t eyewitness accounts… you’re confusing

Sorry I read you as using a double-negative, but you used a triple-negative. An eyewitness account doesn’t mean someone wrote it down while talking to Jesus. It means that the person is reporting those who saw it or they saw it themselves. It’s basically comparable to journalism done by interviewing witnesses.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

See the new thread I started. How Much of DNA is Functional? - Peaceful Science

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

Could I have the original article? I missed it if it was linked.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@thoughtful

Could I have the original article? I missed it if it was linked.

Swamidass linked it above in this post:
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-new-chemical-tree-of-the-origins-of-life/12017/188

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@thoughtful

I’m repeating what others have said. I can take time to find the quote if you want - I’m probably not repeating it correctly.

That’s precisely what I mean by hearsay!

Why don’t you appear to have any interest if learning that the things you repeat are true–even if you are repeating them correctly?

@davecarlson

the remaining 98.5% of the genome that was formerly poorly called “junk DNA,” but better called “intergenic regions. There is ENCODE evidence that part or even much of the intergenic regions

This part is particularly inane. “Junk DNA” has never, ever, been defined as “intergenic regions” or as “noncoding.”

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Rumraket

@swamidass

This is uncivil and untrue in very important ways, I encourage you to look at his website to see how he has made positive statements about evolutionary science.

I’ve listened to his talks, and I stand by my characterization. Do you want concrete examples?

@swamidass

When you talk about Tour so contemptuously you mainly succeed in damaging your own credibility, even if you are technically correct on important points.

Speaking of too much tit-for-tat and damaging one’s credibility, you have claimed that Rumraket has made untruthful statements. That would seem to call for concrete cases of untruthfulness, not complaints about tone.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

Speir is proclaiming that in the age of Google street-view.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mercer

Speaking of too much tit-for-tat and damaging one’s credibility, you have claimed that Rumraket has made untruthful statements.

There was no tit for tat. I did not state @rumraket made untruthful statements. I said he was contemptuous, which means disrespectful. I insinuated, in fact, that much of what he said was true, not false.

[Timothy_Horton]

@swamidass

I don’t agree with Tour on everything either, but he is too accomplished a scientist to talk down to in this way.

An accomplished scientist who deliberately misrepresents OOL research along with basics of evolutionary biology like Tour does deserves to be talked about contemptuously. It doesn’t matter how nice a guy you think he is. Tour brings the harsh criticisms on himself by his actions.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

You can make harsh criticism that are not contempous.

[ProfBravus (David Geelan)]

It’s possible to ‘play the ball and not the man’: to critique the ideas without critiquing the person.

Worth remembering for all of us, and as ever, three fingers pointing back at myself.

[Timothy_Horton]

@swamidass

You can make harsh criticism that are not contempous.

IMHO learned people who make deliberately false statements about science to push their own religious agenda deserve to be held in contempt.

[Timothy_Horton]

@ProfBravus

It’s possible to ‘play the ball and not the man’: to critique the ideas without critiquing the person

There’s a big difference in someone who isn’t scientifically knowledgeable and who sincerely believes what he says vs. someone like Tour, an accomplished scientist who knows better and has no excuse for making the ridiculous false statements about evolutionary biology he has.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@swamidass

I did not state @rumraket made untruthful statements.

You wrote:

@swamidass

This is uncivil and untrue in very important ways,

@swamidass

I said he was contemptuous, which means disrespectful.

You wrote that what he said was untrue, which means untruthful.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@swamidass

You can make harsh criticism that are not contempous.

Is that what you claim Tour is doing?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mercer

You wrote that what he said was untrue , which means untruthful .

Fair enough. I edited out “untrue”.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mercer

@swamidass

You can make harsh criticism that are not contempous.

Is that what you claim Tour is doing?

No it is not. In fact, he himself has apologized for some mistakes he has made in his exchange with Sostack.

[Timothy_Horton]

@swamidass

No it is not. In fact, he himself has apologized for some mistakes he has made in his exchange with Sostack.

Yet the video with Tour’s misrepresentation of Szostak’s work is still up on YouTube in its original form. Tour offered a backhanded “notpology” only for calling Szostak a liar but didn’t change a thing in the video.