To be fair I don’t know that Tour deliberately misrepresents the field. I think he’s genuinely ignorant about a whole lot of it. For example when he criticizes work on the possibility of primitive but functional cell membranes and he contrasts it with eukaryotic organellar compartment membranes as if these are what would have to emerge at the origin of life. It’s ridiculous.
4 Likes
More correctly I think he is hyper informed and qualified on some narrow aspects of the field, but not informed about it broadly. He may have some legitimate points (I think he does) about the areas of his expertise, but I don’t think he sees why the larger context mitigates some of his legitimate criticism.
Speaking of the field I assume you mean chemistry, and possibly some aspects of cell biology. He might have really good information (be hyper-informed) about the composition of eukaryotic organellar compartment membranes(in mice, or homo sapiens), but then his information about evolutionary history is apparently significantly lacking in turn. The larger context he’s missing is evolutionary history and methods for inferring historical developments, and what these methods tell us about the earliest periods of life.
That said, I too think some of his points are legitimate. Particularly when we’re dealing with something that really is well within Tour’s expertise, such as organic chemistry. When Tour complains about dubious assumptions in some experiment done in abiotic chemistry where some scientists buy and use an enantiopure form of some compound in some purified, high concentration solution containing zero of the byproducts that likely would have resulted from that compound’s abiotic synthesis, and they sort of just wave their hands and say something like “natural sinks could have preferentially sequestered byproducts away” or whatever, I really think Tour has a valid point there. They’re beginning with extremely dubious and implausible assumptions they have done no work to show how would work or are at all compatible with the work they’re doing, and hence the prebiotic relevance or plausibility of the experiment they go on to perform really has in no way been shown.
When I read a paper like that, I’m right there with Tour. So are many other researchers in the field who’ve been levying criticisms like those for decades.
3 Likes
Why did you edit it out? Was it a false accusation?
Yes, indeed. Do you have an irony meter handy?
The converse also is inadequate IMO.
Has Tour even acknowledged the existence of metabolism-first hypotheses?
This makes me think that Tour is perhaps the correct one here. I will certainly give him as much or more validity in his answers than you. Do you think that your knowledge is above his in this area?
Tell us plainly and in detail how you are far more qualified than he to speak to this issue.
Is opposition from scientists the criterion you use to determine whether you take creationist assertions to be true? Does it go something like, if disliked by evolutionist scientist then it must be true?
It doesn’t really take that much time to respond to you. I mean this post took me 20 seconds.
Agreed. I question the motives of anyone who thinks he’d be a valuable ally in any pursuit of truth.
We know it is. Steve is a world-class expert in genomics. Tour is a world-class expert in synthetic chemistry. Tour is pontificating on genomics.
2 Likes
In disease research perhaps. Then when the articles get more general in regard to genomics his name appears farther down the list.
Tour demonstrates he is well able to enter the discussion regarding origins of life and submit valuable information to the debate
In any regard, this is completely out of line regarding James Tour and reflects a great deal about the individual making the comment and a forum that would not blush at this kind of behavior, but in fact, support it.
Tone trolling while ignoring the content is such a popular deflection among Creationists.
I don’t doubt that he is. What does that have to do with what he’s said about evolution?
Where does Tour’s name appear in those articles? Where does yours?
Tour is speaking from a crowd of experts he probably knows. Do you do the same when it comes to a discipline you do not engage with daily? Of course you do.
You did nothing to demonstrate Tour’s errors in that paragraph.
That paragraph displays no expertise.
I can’t think of a time I’ve tried to speak authoritatively on a subject I don’t know well.
Quite true. As you said elsewhere, I have other things to do with my time.
4 Likes
…which he has repeatedly demonstrated that he hasn’t yet.
Tour’s contributions may be evaluated on their merits, but the publication record you post is focused on graphene and nanotube research, an focus of organic chemistry rather far removed from proteins.
Or genetics?