Harvard Debate Review: Atheist Scientist Defends James Tour and Debunks Lee Cronin's Assembly Theory

A crucial examination of the debate between Dr. James Tour and Dr. Lee Cronin at Harvard, led by the data scientist Dr. Hector Zenil, holding degrees in BSc Math (UNAM), PGCert Nano (Oxon), MPhil Logic (ENS), PhD CompSci (Lille), and PhD Phil (Sorbonne).
👨‍🔬 Dr. Hector Zenil
hectorzenil.com
📼 Dr. Lee Cronin vs Dr. James Tour Debate the Origin of Life at Harvard Cambridge Faculty Roundtable
kzbin.info...
🧮 The Combinatorial Challenge:
Universal Measures of Complexity - Algorithmic Nature Group complexitycalcu...
• Universal Measures of ...
◉ Algorithmic Complexity
• Graph Complexity by He...
🔹Elegant Compression in Text (The LZ 77 Method) - Computerphile
• Elegant Compression in...
🔥 The 8 Fallacies of Assembly Theory
/ the-8-fallacies-of-ass...
Cronin's Paper
📊 Assembly theory explains and quantifies selection and evolution
www.nature.com...
If you would like to support us in creating more content across our different media platforms, we would greatly appreciate any support you can give. Visit jesusandscienc... to learn more.
God bless.
~
jesusandscienc...
Dr Tour's Personal Website - jmtour.com
Facebook - / drjamestour

[@JessicaSunlight]

Lee Cronin steals work of other people, does not credit anyone, presents it as something new and has audacity to call James nefarious and throws other bold accusations. James gave him "benefit of the doubt" I do not give him or them any. By the way find Hectors KZbin, he has a decent video expanding and repeating the same under a different angle - It becomes quite clear that Lee and his "theory" is a fraud.

[@attila.the.honest]

JessicaDarkness dear, what a load of ignorant piffle. You can't understand the science, you just have faith in Reverend Tour and believe whatever claptrap he preaches. He's full of it, as the actual scientists involved in this discussion pointed out.

[@JohnSmith42374]

@@attila.the.honest *"You can't understand the science"* Yeah, dave drone, nothing says 'you can't understand the science' like having 100% of your own comments about religion haha 🤣But yes, thank you for spreading the word on YT, you're helping to pop these Tour videos in recommended feeds across the world with your mass comment spam and views. Cheers 👏

[@attila.the.honest]

@@JohnSmith42374 This is Rev Tour's channel, pathetic as it is, and his sole opposition to evolution and abiogenesis is based on his literal view of the book of Genesis. It's not possible to refute Rev Tour as the IDiot he is without bring up and refuting his ignorant and primitive religious beliefs.

[@JessicaSunlight]

@@JohnSmith42374 This person you replied to suffers from mental disorder. You assume he is capable to reason and evaluate but he is not. He talks to him selves with himself. In a way most trolls are like this. If you look at his comments its mental hysteria. Whether you want to engage with such mentally disabled people is of course up to you to decide. However I must warn you as a psychologist its waste of your attention and time.

[@pigzcanfly444]

​@@JessicaSunlightit's called malignant narcissism.

[@SpaceLaunchLabs]

I got my Bachelor's and Master's degree at Arizona State University, where Sara Walker is, and I've had to sit through multiple talks she's given to the University students and faculty, in both classes and colloquiums. I can confirm that the claims she makes are just as exaggerated in her talks. I didn't know much about her field, but even at my basic level everything she said was confusing. The claims she was making reminded me of the quantum woohoo magic stuff that pseudoscientists make about how a specific thing can solve everything and explain the whole universe. She was trying to apply Assembly Theory to not just molecules, but was claiming it can be applied on a civilizational scale, on for example satellite imagery, to categorize the level of progress and technology of the civilization. She was using very pseudoscientific terminology and trying to claim her Assembly Theory can solve everything. Even then, I was physically rolling my eyes. You know what the saddest part is? Sara Walker has a well-known reputation at ASU for being able to get huge amounts of funding. Her group has massive budgets. She's very very good at blowing up the importance of her work and getting grants.

[@DartNoobo]

Is she the ADHD lady?

[@chrisdistant9040]

Interesting that you don’t even consider that it could be that you simply aren’t equipped to understand the matter well enough. I’ve seen her lex Friedman podcast with Lee Cronin, and as a former biophysicist nothing any of them said seemed woo or incoherent at all. James Tour on the other hand keeps jumping to (the same) conclusions all the time in virtually every video I’ve seen with him…

[@DartNoobo]

@@chrisdistant9040 interesting, that you find Cronin coherent, while many scientists don't. What is the one conclusion that Tour jumps to in every video? I mean literally, not your own interpretation.

[@pertjacanape]

Grant writing is an invaluable skill to any academic and the school where they work. If you can write a winning grant for one department you can probably do so for another within the same school. You very quickly become the most valuable faculty member the school has.

[@gladishilton1943]

So are you admitting you didn't understand Assembly Theory or Sara Walker's lecture.....but you feel equipped in your state of ignorance to pass a valid judgement over the subject and the individual?! Wow! Dunning Kruger much!

[@jaiacosta6025]

I'm an engineer, not a scientist, so I'm not sure if I understand this correctly. Prof. Cronin claims that he and his team are working on a demonstration of how life could have originated by applying information theory algorithms. Yet, he believes this process occurred in nature without an intelligent agent executing a similar algorithm. I would think the opposite, i.e. if something is nearly impossible to have occurred randomly, but can be explained as the result of an algorithm (a chemical "program" of some sort), then this is proof to me that there was an intelligence behind it.

[@franzpaul6244]

think of Cronin's explanation as a jig saw puzzle that assembles itself for no apparant reason what so ever...

[@JohnSmith42374]

It seems they only used the compression algorithm of "Assembly theory", the LZ77, to secure funding from NASA by claiming this can distinguish higher order structures, since it is now attached to Cronin's Origin of Life research credentials. That's the scam, and Lee has said it's a scam in so many words.

[@nauticalmiles8752]

​@@franzpaul6244 I newer have thought that anything can assemble itself for apparent no reason ( in nature ) there is always a reason behind it

[@franzpaul6244]

@@nauticalmiles8752 exactly- which is why assembly theory just doesn't make sense...

[@DartNoobo]

" but you can not prove intelligence! Go and talk to your imaginary sky daddy!" This is the only answer you will get, unfortunately.

[@DrAndrewC]

I watched the debate and felt that Dr. Tour made some very reasonable arguments and problems with the current state of play in OOL research. He raised several issues that Lee Cronin didn't even address or respond to. Lee Cronin seemed to give a "just so" story rather than any evidence to support his assembly theory.

[@Raiddd__]

to be honest im not even sure what assembly theory could possibly even set out to attempt to prove. Maybe im misunderstanding it (or it wasnt explained very well), but it seems like all the theory is saying is that its logically possible for abiogenesis and darwinian evolution to take place (as well as anything inbetween)... Well... duh? It doesnt seem relevant in the slightest to whether or not it actually in FACT has taken place the way its proposed to have happen by cronin. Remember, this is all GRANTING the theory is correct... even THEN it still seems besides the point of origin of life... If anyone disagrees or can help me understand better, PLEASE let me know. Its honestly befuddling me to hear lee cronin respond in a seemingly meaningless way?

[@jamesmartel505]

@@Raiddd__ Hopefully I can help . Some of the thing you said is correct . However, it’s not as simple as your last paragraph concludes. The theory is predicated on the assumption that all the requirements are meet . However , dr tour is simply saying that it is impossible for the initial requirements to be meet . Tour assertion is that it’s can’t happen , it’s not chemically possible or plausible , and it would take a miracle to happen.

[@DartNoobo]

​@@jamesmartel505 Dr Tour simply says that our current knowledge is lacking and methods are insufficient. That is it. He himself never said that miracle is an absolute necessity.

[@janbuyck1]

The discussion wasn’t about “ is the OoL-research true “, but was about Tour’s claim that OoL-research is a fraud. Tour never could show that in that debate.

[@DartNoobo]

@@janbuyck1 so what, OoL research can be untrue but at the same time not a fraud? Could you clarify your position please?

[@duydatyds]

There is something I noticed from day one of this saga is that the OOL try to make everything (valid arguments and critics) out to be about Tour's religion so that they can ignore his valid questions. But stay alert people, this is not a religious debate but scientific and academic honesty aka "put your foot where your mouth at". It's time for the science community regardless of your religion to demand a progress report from those OOL scientists.

[@nitsujism]

Progress report? You can go and look at the countless research papers that are published every year regarding it. And yes, this is about Tour's religious motivations - that's clearly his MO. Why? Because OoL proposes the hypothesis that life arose by natural means and that is in direct conflict with Tour's religious beliefs. And this is further enforced by the number of religious fundamentalist fanatics that line up behind him. And, his involvement with the Discovery Institute I might add.

[@markusbaker1161]

“Progress report”?! You can go to google scholar and read thousands of papers on OoL research! Most of it would go over your head. Just because you don’t understand the chemistry doesn’t mean that progress hasn’t been made. Thousands of scientists are working on this everyday!

[@universalflamethrower6342]

@@markusbaker1161 thousands of papers on smurf society does not make smurf society real

[@markusbaker1161]

@@universalflamethrower6342 false equivalence, don’t bother me with your asinine comment.

[@MultipleGrievance]

​@@nitsujism You guys are so unbelievably blind in your bias that you can't even tell that you have it.

[@kendemajoros4617]

What a great way to answer prof.Cronin - no ad hominem attacks, just bringing in someone of the actual field. As I commented on the actual debate - don’t let Dr. Cronin’s mild demeanor at the debate fool you - these are the same people, who will totally destroy you in a different setting, torpedo your funding, ridicule you, anything.

[@chi-yangcheng8868]

Exactly. Cronin is at the top of the mafia organization.

[@beanbean3535]

Did you not watch the video?

[@chongu]

@@beanbean3535 did u watch the video?

[@beanbean3535]

@@chongu did you?

[@tonyclif1]

Zenil is not "someone of the actual field" that Cronin works in. You might want to fact check yourself there

[@John777Revelation]

Regarding OoL research, virtually everything that the OoL scientists appear to be doing is Investigator Interference (i.e. use of Mind/Conscious/Intelligence); then claiming Methodological Naturalism (i.e. non-use of Mind/Conscious/Intelligence). And even with all of the Investigator Interference, the Ool Scientists have still been unable to demonstrate abiogenesis.

[@DartNoobo]

And yet it is obvious to materialists that abiogenesis is true, as well as macroevolution. This is just a product of ideology, plain and simple. But ideologies can not be toppled by facts and logic, wo what can be done here?

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

@@DartNoobo You neither understand abiogenesis nor macroevolution. The only thing ideological here is your belief.

[@glenliesegang233]

No random processes create highly complex unidirectional unistrand base 4 digital information in kilobyte quantities, build all the highly complex molecules specified by thar information, (especially each tRNA with unique codon region) plus thenon-coding "operating system" which serve as gates to process the chemical and electrical properties in and outside the cell to alter behaviors in real time. The evidence demands that a Superintelligence created 2 unique genomes and all the parts needed for replication in 2 different schema.

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

@@glenliesegang233 Sorry, but your false analogies do not prove the existence of a creator. Comparing biological systems to computers is like comparing apples and oranges; you are forgetting that mutation-selection mechanisms and self-replication enable novel structures to develop over time, in a bid to increase fitness in fluctuating environments.

[@dorcasmcleod9439]

Abiogenesis historically called spontaneous generation is anti-science. Natural sciences require repeatability. Where is (one), just one, abiogenesis proven example? Answer is zero, because it is ideological assumption, not reality...

[@MacBjorn]

This video not only reveals how scientists game the community for grant money, but a consequence of holding back real scientific breakthroughs because of hubris and lies

[@roscius6204]

What funds Tour?

[@JohnSmith42374]

@@roscius6204 Applied science. Hundreds of patent families and startup companies. Rather ask what Cronin is getting funded for; academic proposals that ripped off Zenil et al ("Algorithmic Complexity and Reprogrammability of Chemical Structure Networks" 2018) and published AT without even citing the algorithm. Good job supporting your team of frauds.

[@jamesatkinson7517]

@@roscius6204 he is rich from his businesses

[@GreatBehoover]

​@@roscius6204 Very real patents that hive very real commercial value. Wait until his cancer destroying graphine bots are needed by you before blindly questioning him!😉

[@derekallen4568]

​@@roscius6204discovery institute

[@nschlaak]

"I read the paper and I think that I forgot my own name." Excellent quote on a nonsensical paper.

[@samdg1234]

Sounds like "The Conceptual Penis."

[@xmathmanx]

Does acting superior while offering no case impress you?

[@JesusSavesSouls]

@@xmathmanxYou a fan of Dave then?

[@xmathmanx]

@@JesusSavesSouls there are a lot of daves

[@i7Qp4rQ]

@@xmathmanx "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Many a dave, indeed.

[@davidgakerendegwa8903]

This expose should trigger a global investigation into academic dishonesty and establishment of ways to hold such accountable.

[@DartNoobo]

This is not a first expose at all. But who is going to do the investigation? Corrupt scientists themselves? It is like asking a dictator to check the state of democracy in his dominion. The answer will always be "It is healthy"

[@harrygarris6921]

That’s not going to happen. The purpose of academia is not to be honest, it’s to entice federal and private interest groups to give them grant money.

[@Nxck2440]

@@harrygarris6921 So all of science is just lying for cash? Glad to see all of Prof Dave's accusations against what Tour followers think turn out to be completely true.

[@crimsonking5961]

I am sure the UN will get right on academic dishonesty😂😂😂

[@harrygarris6921]

@@Nxck2440 that’s not what I said. I work in academia myself. It’s important to do good science and not be misleading but the academic world gets idealized a lot as if the reason it functions is because we all really care about improving our knowledge and making the world a better place. And maybe that’s the motivation of a few people but what really drives the university system is the same as every other industry - it’s ultimately about money.

[@John777Revelation]

*_“And the thing is, it [assembly theory] could be quite wrong. But, maybe it’s less wrong than some other approaches … I’m not coming here telling you that we’ve solved the [Origin of Life] problem. I’m coming here saying we need to look at the problem in a new way to make progress.”_* Dr. Lee Cronin (1:03:24 Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable, Harvard University, 11-28-23)

[@djfunkychicken]

Amazing how far some will go to get recognition of something.. even if it is totally fabricated information

[@templarroystonofvasey]

It's a good opener, BUT, if your "science" fails at making predictions it's trash no matter how much it's "less wrong".

[@showmeanedge]

It's amazing that they try to hang their credibility on how often they're wrong about things.

[@davidryan8547]

@@showmeanedge yes this is the thing that confuses me the most. I see people (mostly non-scientists I am sure but still they support them) all over Twitter and IG constantly hold up scientific failures as scientific achievements.....which just makes no sense.

[@samdg1234]

You quote Cronin as saying, *"I’m coming here saying we need to look at the problem in a new way to make progress.”"* It just hit me how similar that is to what Tour is actually saying. Seemingly according to Cronin there, we aren't making progress. Golden.

[@marie3611]

These guys are peers who have each other's backs. You let me slide and I will reciprocate. They're not used to being called out with bullet proof evidence and in that respect they're lazy. They don't have a defense at the ready because up until this episode they didn't need one. Think about this next time you read a peer reviewed study. Apply this to everything you take for granted as generally accepted to be true and that goes beyond science. Bravo Dr Tour!

[@Redbaron_sites]

Exactly right,thanks you are a wise person

[@beanbean3535]

That’s not how science works. You do realize you sound like a flat earther right?

[@Redbaron_sites]

@@beanbean3535 Well it wasn't that long ago that quantum physics was dismissed.We Christians are not science deniers and we are not all literalist. We simply believe the odds of non intelligent design make it very unlikely. And no, we don't believe The Federal Government killed Kennedy.

[@KarmaKahn]

Science is not about 'having each other's backs'. That muddies the water. In science you go where the evidence leads you.

[@beanbean3535]

@@KarmaKahn fr

[@tiffanymagee2700]

Thank you Prof Tour for being courageous enough to point out the weakness of today's academia. They rest on their laurels instead of answering tough questions.

[@templarroystonofvasey]

Worse than that. These 2 are willing "give the benefit of the doubt", yet after watching Lee Cronin at that Harvard debate selling all sorts of fairy-tales, I wouldn't be so charitable at all.

[@pete_lind]

James sock puppet account clearly.

[@docsavage30]

It all makes sense, if you ignore the chemistry you don't like.

[@fohrum4757]

Wow. You guys are deluded. I really genuinely bad that you fall for James Tour's BS. It's not your fault though.

[@ZebecZT]

@@fohrum4757The feeling is mutual. lee Cronin in his starting rehearsal said he wasn’t there to debate, which immediately for me makes lee look bad as a scientist.

[@MisaelCastilloBrenes]

What really discourages me from the Harvard round table is how on the discussion table full of thinkers no one even question Lee, but they even quoted Stephen Hawkins and they almost said "it is true because you see it everyday" (paraphrasing). They were more shocked of the fact that "there was a discussion in the first place", as if there shouldn't be any on that regard. That shows how not even "unsophisticated people" are being easily deceived but also the so-called "sophisticated people" are being misled because they don't even think about it enough to question what they are affirming.

[@joshuadiamaro4415]

I'm afraid that's modern academia 😢,it's a herd mentality in the scientific community,that's why if there's a new idea,they will immediately reject it or atleast scrub it when it challenge there present beliefs or narrative😢even though the evidence is compelling, it's in every fabric of our society,it's kinda like a trend

[@DartNoobo]

There is no God, so why question Lee? If life wasn't created, then obviously it was a case of abiogenesis. Nothing to question there at all!

[@GodID7]

@@DartNooboa claim you can’t back up dude.

[@DartNoobo]

@@GodID7 I claim that you didn't understand what I meant and you are eager to defend Jesus.

[@MartTLS]

@@GodID7 The fact that there is life is evidence that abiogenesis happened. There was no life on the young earth and now there is . What’s the alternative ?

[@jasperkloosterman747]

I just have to add that I love Dr Hector Zenil his composure. Calm relaxed and to the point. I hope you get him on more Dr tour

[@DukeSlystalker]

36:00 is what this boils down to. Dr Zenil says that he discussed this with Dr Cronin, and Cronin refused to "take it on board" We need a response from Cronin.

[@blastortoise]

Probably because it's not relevant, stop wasting time for REAL scientists, James can continue Nazi saluting about God while screaming in debates and humiliating himself

[@tonyclif1]

Cronin has responded on Prof Dave's channel. Zenil approached him some years ago, and Cronin realised Zenil was out of his field, and when he declined to work with Zenil, Zenil got upset, and has since looked for ways to criticise him.

[@blastortoise]

@@tonyclif1 Who'd have thought, James tour the hissy fit queen gets a hissy fit thrower to "criticize" an actual scientist

[@JimMcCrudden-w6g]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha@@tonyclif1

[@vincentrusso4332]

​@@tonyclif1who is Prof Dave in this field...not even a Professor, talk about someone being out of his field.. ok superbuddy.

[@UnbiasOP]

"sure I lied, but look how many downloads this lie spawned!" Cronin, lee

[@CeurComplex]

Lying is a hard word and I think we should Lee escape now back to his laboratory. It was inevitable (but feels nevertheless sad and somehow wrong) to attack Lee Cronin to show the hype problem in OOL. But in the end Lee just searches for his own type of "miracle" - something that gives his life meaning, and he does so in science. Lee propably would not agree but that might not be to different than how we search for the meaning of life in God. Or in other words: if we have the right to hope for our type of miracle he has the right to wait for his. A wise man once said to me: "God talks to us in the way we as an individual understand". So if people like Lee Cronin or Victor Zenil are called by God, it's propably through the language of science. May God bless them and give them peace and success, amen.

[@petesake813]

I’m so glad I watched this.I realise as a lay person I’ve been utterly bamboozled by Cronin and his cronies.

[@BoosterShot1010]

I can confirm as computer science college student that I had that compression algorithm as homework in my first computer science class.

[@utopiabuster]

Did Cronin cheat? Fudge numbers?

[@chaotickreg7024]

I think compression and abstraction make complexity easier and makes Tour's arguments weaker. Look. Say nature randomly made an abstraction, like an autocatalytic molecule. That molecule can make more of itself without having to start from scratch. When I code, I make a parent class, and now every instance is built on that class. I don't have to code each instance individually. That's complexity and reproduction arising from a single random molecule. Since each instance follows the same instructions, I can compress those instructions for the instances to uncompress when they need to use them. Compressed things are obviously smaller and simpler than uncompressed things. So instead of randomly creating 48 whole creatures, I can make 1 creature that reproduces 48 times and gives each child a compressed set of instructions. Simpler. It seems like it requires more complexity to set up, but then that's the last unlikely thing to happen, the rest just follows naturally.

[@cmathias4993]

@@chaotickreg7024 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@chaotickreg7024]

@@cmathias4993 No argument? Cool! I must be correct then.

[@cmathias4993]

@@chaotickreg7024 because that’s embarrassing to make such a statement, it’s equivalent to a child saying calculus is easier than basic arithmetic. And to say otherwise weakens your argument. I

[@zr7699]

Love it! You both rock!!! Dr. Zenil thank you for your honesty!!!

[@lesliecunliffe4450]

James Tour has always stressed the need for science and scientists to operate by causal explanation. Therefore, for Cronin to say that Tour is invoking a 'god of the gaps' approach makes no sense, Tour is simply drawing attention to the 'naturalistic gaps' in the origin of life research. it is Cronin who promotes a theory requiring 'gaps', which he tries to redeem by suggesting that science is a fallible, groping-after-truth process. But for the sake of science, such an approach has always to be judged by causal explanation. When this is done, as in the case of Hector Zenil's analysis, Cronin's theory fails the test of rigour. It's really that simple. Cronin's salad word sentences can't obfuscate this basic truth.

[@roscius6204]

So what causes gods?

[@JohnSmith42374]

@@roscius6204 A creator outside of the creation, not subject to it, is not bound by time. You assume a beginning because you're not trained in thinking. Before Hubble, many theorists were happy to accept, without evidence, that the universe was self-existent as many steady state proponents claimed, including Einstein and Hoyle, Sandage. So atheists are happy to assign to the universe what they disallow for a supposed creator of the universe after learning that the universe had a beginning. Such hypocrisy. Only, those geniuses changed their minds, you're still clueless.

[@nitsujism]

@@Who_IsLike_God What is a 'God' can only be definitional because apparently there's no test we can conduct to ascertain wether a 'God' actually exists except in imaginations.

[@nitsujism]

@@Who_IsLike_God Like I said, the best you can get is a definition. I can say "what is a thing'" about unicorns and we can look up the definition. But then it's pointless to argue about whether unicorns can or cannot poop glitter clouds.

[@nitsujism]

@@Who_IsLike_God The definition of God is easy - we can just go to the dictionary to agree on a definition. And, BTW, I'm well versed with the apologetics regarding uncaused and all the omni-x properties and so on. And no, it's not a category error because the category I'm talking about is the category of things that we cannot tell apart from imagination. And unless you can provide a test that can show that God exists outside of imagination, then it's in that category whether you like it or not.

[@seanwhitley4705]

thank you James! i’m a former manager of a materials R&D lab for a fortune 500 company and a believer in Jesus Christ, and you are doing yeoman’s work!

[@survivaloptions4999]

Cronin: Tour doesn't understand the math. Tour: Here is a mathematician. Cronin (eventually): Zenil doesn't understand the chemistry.

[@templarroystonofvasey]

🤣😂🤣- what a weasel !!!

[@pete_lind]

And i see Professor Dave tearing James Tour apart again.

[@templarroystonofvasey]

@@pete_lind"Fake" professor Dave.

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

@@pete_lindDave is a nobody. Tours presence at Harvard completely refutes Dave’s stance. How do you not see this?

[@utopiabuster]

​@@pete_lind , Yeah, because among Prof "wannabedscienceguy" Dave numerous fictitious accomplishments is his imaginary mathematician and information degree. Can't wait!

[@eliasvalle8241]

Watching this has just opened my eyes to how disingenuous some people can be. I tried to watch professor Dave’s video talking about the Harvard debate. It’s literally a personal attacks on Dr Tour. Thank you Dr. Tour for being brave enough to stand up against the lies. God bless you and your family in Jesus mighty name 🙏❤️

[@likeahouseonfire]

I actually do think D.F. had a legitimate intention of ridding the world of unscientific none sense that he perceives has negative impacts on society. I don’t think he has come to terms with how much his identity is wrapped up in his YT channel and how he is blindly dogmatic about his atheism. Making fun of flat earthers are easy, but I doubt he was expecting the solid science and media presentation that Tour fired back from his little channel. D.F. Is now just a hater which takes no education or skill to ,ironically, negatively affect society. Happy and fulfilled people don’t make personal hate-filled attack videos.

[@JohnSmith42374]

@@likeahouseonfire "I don’t think he has come to terms with how much his identity is wrapped up in his YT channel" What? Haha, he makes most of his money from YT, he knows he's carved a niche out for himself as a snarky science popularizer. However he is fast food for pseudo-intellectuals and athetistic materialist hopefuls. Dave will never back down. He was demonstrably wrong in many of his claims that myself and even Dr Rob Stadler pointed out to him- we were met with swearing and comment deletion.

[@alexnik1181]

​@@JohnSmith42374 Well, what Dave claims is usually scientific discoveries supported by a plethora of evidence and agreed upon by the majority of the brightest people in the world. It's not surprising that people with two digits of IQ would be so arrogant and characterize him as "fast food for pseudo-intellectuals and atheistic materialist hopefuls." You and Dr Rob Stadler can keep being delusional, reality doesn't matter too much for intellectuals like you.

[@i7Qp4rQ]

@@JohnSmith42374 Yeah, his channel should be deleted for slandering.

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

@@JohnSmith42374 What exactly was he wrong about?

[@TheComicbookguy78]

The Devil is making himself ever more known and it's obvious! Dr. Tour is making God ever more a reality!

[@sentientflower7891]

The Devil came down to Georgia and it was entertaining indeed. The devil visited Dr. Faust and tremendous creativity resulted.

[@docsavage30]

The Devil is like the Sauron character in your book. Is that right?

[@showmeanedge]

I appreciate the sentiment but claiming that anything makes God more real is not true.

[@sentientflower7891]

@@showmeanedge nobody cares whether you are an atheist or not. Do you really want a trophy?

[@showmeanedge]

@@sentientflower7891 I'm not an atheist, friend. It was piety that made me comment. God is real. Nothing can make him more real.

[@pedrojrgarcia1979]

I'm serious in this statement, please bring more people who are doing real science work in science, but have been blacklisted and canceled because they aren't going along with the main narrative please. Thank you and praying for you brother. May HE bless you and keep you, may HE make HIS Face to shine on you and turn to you and give you peace. 🙏

[@roscius6204]

Listen to yourself. You only want to hear science from people outside the science community! I hope you seek out unlicensed doctors and debarred lawyers too.

[@morganpauls1873]

@@roscius6204 listen to yourself youre fine with scientists acting against their practice and then compare it to domains whose practice is completely different in behavior of practice oh my oh my whatever will we do? see see i can point out that i perceive you as ridicules just as you can to the that said it doesnt make you nor i any less of an ass so maybe next time you may want to engage in conversation rather than make a point that says silly things and leads nowhere or perhaps thats just wishful thinking on my part aside that though i hope you have a good day

[@roscius6204]

@@morganpauls1873 do you have a point or just a complaint...

[@morganpauls1873]

@@roscius6204 yes because the question you just asked was that that was my point with regards to you

[@roscius6204]

@@morganpauls1873 so you don't like my analogy. I think it's perfectly valid. Professional bodies need to be able to determine what is appropriate. Not following the narrative is a hallmark of science historically. Don't try and tell me there are no Christian scientists, that would be absurd, but clearly there is no 'Christian Science'

[@DartNoobo]

Lee Cronin : " I like to provoke people, my ideas might be wrong, but this is beside the point!" Prof Dave:" It says "X" in the headline therefore proven!" Perfect.

[@roscius6204]

Where you are stuck in a cognitive loop here, is because you think a branch of scientific research may be barking up the wrong tree, you can therefor conclude that your tree must be the answer. Just replace your answer for any other and you'll see how unworkable that thinking is.

[@wouldlovemyownname]

@@roscius6204 Sorry buddy, that "Loop" as you call it is all in you're own head.

[@roscius6204]

@@wouldlovemyownname Objectively wrong. I will change my mind if new, better information warrants it. Will you?

[@wouldlovemyownname]

​@@roscius6204 You are literally assuming the thoughts in other peoples heads and then responding to them. so yes, I suggest you do find better information,.

[@samdg1234]

@@roscius6204 You say, *"I will change my mind if new, better information warrants it."* So, what is the state of your mind on whether anyone (10 of the best and brightest OOL researchers were challenged) has an answer to even one of the five questions? Duffus Dave said they'd been answered. Did you believe him? Do you still? Seems like we've got pretty good information on the current state of the answerablity of those questions. Tour's claims are very modest. OOL statements and publications abound with hype. Ask yourself how 1/3 of people (80% of whom have some college education) are under the impression that frogs have been created in the lab. How is the public so misinformed? Is it Tour who is at fault for any of that? Interesting that when one is careful to tease apart the statement from Cronin a bit of light can shine through. From one of the commentors above I was reminded of Cronin's statement in the Cronin/Tour discussion at Harvard, Cronin said, "I’m coming here saying we need to look at the problem in a new way to make progress.”" It just hit me how similar that is to what Tour is actually saying. Seemingly according to Cronin there, we aren't making progress. Golden.

[@simplejackthemack5896]

It's ridiculous how these men know they are wrong but becouse of pride or money they continue to lie and be deceitful with people like us that aren't scientist just to fool us out of hate or disdain or they're own God complex. Thank you Tour for all your work

[@roscius6204]

Ahahaha I thought you were talking about Tour....

[@simplejackthemack5896]

@roscius6204 Tour says there is uncertainty and we can't definitively say one way or the other. The scientist he argues with say this is how it is and we can prove it when they clearly cannot.

[@DVDPlayer18]

Not necessarily. Sometime they need founding for their researchrs otherwise with no pubblication they'll get fired

[@roscius6204]

@@simplejackthemack5896 Not about god he doesn't.... And it's science, it's built in to the definition. So that makes no sense.

[@RivBank-o3j]

Discovery institute is paying tour big bucks

[@DavidRosario69]

Brilliant! As a programmer who understands compression, LZW, and graph-based data structures (trie, trees, etc.), this makes a whole lot of sense.

[@utopiabuster]

Did Cronin cheat? Fudge numbers?

[@markmcflounder15]

Yeah! This must be super engaging for you. I only have a superficial grasp on this. And, it's still enjoyable!

[@stevew4079]

Can you help me? I don’t know what trees had to do with this? I’m really trying to understand…but feel I’m completely out of my depth 😢

[@ingoditrust7784]

Great, now explain to me how life came into existence. I can explain to you it was brought into existence by God, who progressively revealed Himself, incarnated a little over two thousand years ago, let mankind put Him to death and resurrected so as to prove God is above life and death, founded the Catholic Church, assisted His Church over centuries of extraordinary persecution, and so on. Why do we know so? Because it was revealed and confirmed by miracles. The latest (70th) approved miracle in relation to Lourdes, France was scientifically investigated by over 300 physicians (not all Christians) and yet found supernatural! The Miracle of the Sun on October 13, 1917 was witnessed by tens of thousands of people (again, not all Christians). No eyesight damage reported after minutes of staring into the sun! Miracles, people! So as to call you to know Him. Not theories and speculation, miracles prove God's existence and because of the religious context, they point to the Faith historically revealed and going back to the beginning of everything in the physical realm.

[@alexnik1181]

@@stevew4079 I can help you as a programmer who has been implementing compression algorithms and working with graphs for more than a decade. None of this makes any sense. The person above is just biased.

[@eschaton8758]

reaching truth is impossible without virtue

[@CeurComplex]

In that case a lot of our scieces are doomed. If you look into the extreme animal violence for example that is used in brain science ... seriously a God may even give us false results to punish us for what we have done there.

[@harutikz]

Harvard. The woke factory disgraced for plagiarism?

[@sentientflower7891]

Whenever anyone uses "woke" as an insult they are Nazi signalling.

[@stultusvenator3233]

Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination". Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBT rights.

[@ronbehrens3081]

I appreciated the calm and rational explanation by Hector Zenil. He is right that it does not advance science when something is overhyped or repackaged and claimed to be something new. As a peer reviewer it was expected of me that I would present to the editor my assessment of how the manuscript compared with and properly cited prior work. It was also expected that I evaluate the claims in it about novelty and true contributions to the field. It is a failing of the peer review process using inappropriate reviewers if this isn’t happening. At least Zenil is taking the right stand here and calling this out. I’ll read more by Zenil.

[@CeurComplex]

That the peer review failed so sorrowly is indeed interesting. It might be part of the reason why Lee Cronin got into this somewhat emberassing situation. Because he too might have thought: But at least it got through peer review so I can't be that wrong. The guy who did the review propably thought: but if it comes from someone this famous it can't be wrong. Welcome to a new sort of atheistic echo chamber on the highest possible level ...

[@spracketskooch]

Peer review is one of those things that would work great if it wasn't humans doing it.

[@noahfletcher3019]

@@CeurComplex Peer review is bullshit. Real science can only be done by yourself. The last time we probably did that was during school when we had to carry out our OWN experiments. If you haven't done the experiment yourself, all the science is you believe has to be taken on faith. Which is okay until you realise its very very flawed people you're putting faith in.

[@eliasvalle8241]

It’s sad that the scientific community is so bent on keeping their materialistic worldview that they won’t even let Dr Tour publish a paper. Then atheist attack Dr Tour exclaiming “if your so smart why don’t you publish a paper”. Scientist from the passed feared God and would seek answer about His creation. Now they try to debunk a creator but have no real answers or explanation.

[@CeurComplex]

@@eliasvalle8241 One of the problems Tours has with publishing is that what he is doing is a review, while most scienctific journals are specialized on publishing only "new findings" . What that constant greed for novelty creates we have seen with Lee Cronin - it leads to stuff beeing sold as new that is not new just to meet the publishing criteria of such scientific journals. One must say that in the area of medicin, a whole organisations exist -cochran- that is specialized just on reviews of existing stuff, not novel findings. But that was created because doctors didn't wanted to be floated with sensationalist but false findings all the time (means doctos don't trust the existing peer review mechanism very much either). As Victor Zenil complained such an organisation that collects critique against existing findings does not exist outside medicine.

[@charis-ann]

Disingenuous and deceptive on the part of Lee Cronin, sham! Excellent expert witness Dr. Zenil. Thankyou Dr. Tour.

[@attila.the.honest]

When it comes to credibility, I'll take Cronin over Reverend Tour or any of his acolytes.

[@ESCAGEDOWOODWORKING]

When the OoL professor was performing his monologue, I was waiting for a top hat rabbit trick, or a wand into flowers one. It was all rhetoric, but Tour solved all this with his original first videos on what they actually don't have, science.

[@tarp-grommet]

So you think that "god did it" is not a top hat rabbit trick? Creationism is literally the original sleight-of-hand ruse complete with some classic elements of a magician's performance.

[@JohnSmith42374]

@@tarp-grommet If the only alternatives are God or "Assembly Theory" (literally "Abracadabra, as Cronin put it, how ironic) Then you can choose magic.

[@tarp-grommet]

@@JohnSmith42374 You can work with molecules and compounds. Everyone can agree that they actually exist and scientists have built many amazing things with them. The supernatural on the other hand - not so much.

[@timothykeith1367]

@tarp-grommet Tour does not invoke God. Dave Farina mocked God in the debate.​

[@showmeanedge]

​@@tarp-grommetGod isn't magic. It would be nice if you came with an analogy that more closely relates to reality.

[@Sensorium19]

This looks terribly for Cronin. I hadn't ascribed any malicious intent to his approach or work before now, but this is scientific malpractice at the very least. If they are repurposing old compression tools without citation that is plagiaristic, intentional or not.

[@chi-yangcheng8868]

You have forgotten one thing: people such as Lee Cronin don’t know what’s true science or bad scientism. They tend to have no sense of shame. The only things they care are power and control. Cronin is a “gate keeper” in his field, so he has the money and power to control the game. No other highly achieved scientists ever have the guts to challenge the mafia until Dr James Tour persistently asks the legit scientific questions.

[@beanbean3535]

Bruh, what video did you watch, it definitely wasn’t this one

[@John777Revelation]

*_“I’m not coming here telling you that we’ve solved the [Origin of Life] problem. I’m coming here saying we need to look at the problem in a new way to make progress.”_* Dr. Lee Cronin (1:03:24 , Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable, Harvard University, 11-28-23)

[@lauramann8275]

That's not what he was asked to go there for. It was a challenge and he didn't even attempt to talk about it.

[@javiercamposgomez1287]

And now we are learning that he is not even looking at the problem in a new way because there is nothing new in his assembly theory😂

[@lauramann8275]

@@javiercamposgomez1287 And he couldn't even get results they could get 50 years ago 🤣

[@GregoryHolden-k5c]

Still searching for an answer that already exist. It is simply not the answer that they desire!😮

[@thebeatles9]

You have the answer?! I can't wait to read about it! What journal shall you publish it in? I'll be sure to subscribe. @@GregoryHolden-k5c

[@likeahouseonfire]

“It’s the title of the paper, so you’re wrong and lying y’know?” - A Science Communicator

[@csmoviles]

Especial thanks to the guest Dr. Zenil for having courage to sepak the truth and not fearing to be cancelled 💖🙏. May God bless him

[@John777Revelation]

During an interview, when asked if the genetic code is really a code, Dr. Richard Dawkins answered, *_“It [the genetic code] IS a code. It's definitely a code.”_* (Source: Jon Perry - Genetics & Evolution Stated Casually KZbin Channel Interview with Dr. Richard Dawkins on 4-2-2022. Dr. Richard Dawkins is widely regarded as the world’s foremost expert on Darwinian Evolution)

[@stephenfennell]

I'm not a biologist, but from what I have heard, Dawkins is not an especially outstanding scientist. It's more that he is an excellent writer and speaker (though on a bad theory!). If I'm wrong there, I apologise to him.

[@alexnik1181]

@stephenfennell A theory supported by a plethora of evidence, brings food on your table and brings medicine in the nearest pharmacy. Is this how you define a bad theory? I'm interested to hear what's a good theory, then.

[@i7Qp4rQ]

@@alexnik1181 "..brings food on your table.." You confuse agriculture with a theory... 👏 Not a single pill of medicine was made with the evolution theory.

[@alexnik1181]

@i7Qp4rQ Maybe you are unaware that the food on your table has been artificially selected through many generations, which is the essence of evolution. It's funny how ignorant people don't know the process by which the food they consume is produced. Imagine how likely it is for you to survive if you had to produce your own food. Lucky you.

[@glenliesegang233]

There are multiple theories. OOL and generating code for complex structures after life began all require a way to explain how complex digitally encoded information in kilobyte to megabyte range can be generated by random processes

[@craighutchinson6856]

So thankful to have found your work on KZbin. Want to thank your guest and honor him for his integrity and his love for science.

[@truthmatters7573]

Anti Christian bias is a problem in academia and papers have been published on that. Unfortunately dr. Tour is a victim of this bias. Fortunately dr. Tour has the fortitude to fight back and the competence to put his unfair critics to shame. Praise God.

[@dorcasmcleod9439]

Dr Tour's true, real progress in science for actual real world problems also keeps him above the total need to depend on the elitist heirchy for funding research.

[@roscius6204]

No.. Antiscientific bias is an issue in Creationism. Science will accept anything you can prove Science will accept anything you can prove Science will accept anything you can prove clear enough?

[@loulasher]

​@@roscius6204You anthropomorphize science. You do not address the comment you replied to but move the goal posts. Even if what you said is true (but "science" is a method of inquiry and can not "accept" anything no matter how many times you repeat your slogan), it does not refute the comment. Both could be true, that is if your slogan could be true but it can't. But keep chanting if that works for you.

[@roscius6204]

@@loulasher You might want to reconsider anthropomorphize. Science is neither an animal nor an object it is a human endeavor and as such the term science also refers to its community. I doubt you really misunderstood. Anyway you're simply having a little tantrum and avoiding the reality of not being able to prove your fairytale.

[@PGHEngineer]

There's a lot of socialists in academia and a lot of socialists outside of academia using taxpayer money to fund anti-Christian science. That's why so much money is poured into evolutionary biology, origin of life research, extra-terrestrial life research, cosmology, particle physics. None of these areas of research will do anything for humanity except suggest that God doesn't exist. You can't prove it but you can suggest it, or at least get rid of a literal belief in the bible. This is why so many of the public faces of these sciences immediately turn to the god question when they are in public media and why so many have socialist in their biographies. It is not an accident. Its a socialist conspiracy. Interestingly the elites have been attacking Christianity ever since the ordinary man was able to read it for himself. They done like the bits where it says "though shalt not kill" and "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword". It gets in the way of real.power.

[@justaguy328]

Cronin's entire presentation was naturalism of the gaps. He has the utmost FAITH that this is true and science will figure out all these problems, no matter how large or many, because there is no other option in his mind. There is no God, so this is the only possible way, so it doesn't matter how many holes there are in the theory. His worldview doesn't allow him to look at any other options. This is why atheism is close minded. Theism allows you to see the natural and supernatural order, but atheism only allows you to look at EVERY SINGLE facet of reality through a natural lens. So it doesn't matter if Jesus appeared in the sky tomorrow for the entire world to see, there would still be atheists on youtube tomorrow saying that it was an illusion from the government or aliens or some religious group. All Cronin did was venerate the scientific method and criticize James for shouting so loudly about the problems (shh, let's work on these issues quietly and not let the public know about them). He was acting like attacking his worldview and research was attacking science itself. This is the same thing that Fauci said during the pandemic. This is a religious worldview, and these scientists are the magesterium, who are quick to excommunicate fellow scientists from the "scientism" religion as soon as they get even a whiff of heresy. Naturalism must be protected at all costs. The forever fatal flaw of any of this research is that you always introduce intelligence into the experiment, so at best you can prove that intelligence can create life, and since we are made in the image of God, the ability to create life in a lab would confirm theism, not naturalism. Outside of rocks beginning to wake up, this can never logically prove naturalism. That's their worldview. One day the rocks just woke up for some reason and here we are. And they call theists crazy? But again, they don't see these as issues because they already believe that naturalism is true, so a fatal flaw in their research is completely overlooked. It is the only possible game in town. It is the definition of "I was blind" from the Bible. It's right in front of their eyes, but they cannot see it. It's the craziest thing!

[@templarroystonofvasey]

"I am the science". Judge Fauci.

[@DartNoobo]

Amen. I really need to save this comment of yours, because this is exactly what I see every time, but I lack patience to put it the way you did. Bravo!

[@nitsujism]

Great. Let's say for a moment that a theistic explanation for life may be the case. How do we perform the empirical test for that?

[@DartNoobo]

@@nitsujism how do you look for the most likely logical explanation? There must be a methodology for that. For now we might try and establish what are the requirements for the simplest viable organism. Then we might calculate the likelihood of this organism self-assembling. Then we need to look up the probability theory and assess if this is possible. If we find this occurrence to be statistically impossible, then we must conclude for now that life was most likely created. This is at least one way of doing that. What are your ideas?

[@nitsujism]

@@DartNoobo First, as a matter of principle, you look for explanations based on scientific precedence. So, for example, it's reasonable to expect the explanation to correspond with known laws of physics because every other scientific discovery we've made does so. Results that expand our scientific knowledge can't be ruled out, but we must look at precedence first. Second, in order to study how life might have come about you have to go to the lowest possible starting point. So not at the organism level, but at the replicating molecules level. Once you have replication, then selection pressures can play a factor. When things are said to be statistically impossible, they're almost always from the perspective of these things just appearing from nothing rather than studying the history or processes by which things arrive at a certain state. This is addressed specifically in Cronin's Assembler Theory. Claiming that life is created raises even more issues than mere improbability. Now it is posited that matter was somehow assembled by an unknown process, by an unknown entity, with no precedence, no mechanism and with no empirical way of testing it. As far as science goes it's just a non-starter.

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

Peptide bonds are a problem for prebiotic chemistry to accomplish. But the sequences of the 20 specific amino acids is a crippler. The scientific name for the largest known protein Titin, a veritable molecular spring, is 189,819 letters long. It is composed of 37,000 amino acids. Only the 20 specific out of 500+ kinds, sequenced in only their left hand forms (except glycine) as exactly as 20 amino acid letters spelling protein words. This is not evidence of a mindless, pointless process of trial and error. They cannot demonstrate by any prebiotic process make a single protein form from carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and sulfur. The proverbial warm little pond, primordial soup could?

[@melvinorwaokumu51]

I am a chemist by profession. This novel assembly theory posited by these scientists has been disguised to delude the world of academia . Though ironically it displays a nuance of an intelligent design

[@crothar2]

What is the point of exaggerating their results? Is it publicity or fame they want? I think it's just because they can do it without any negative consequences to their careers. Why the peer reviews are unreliable? One hand washes another hand: review my paper favorably, I will also do you a favour. It destroys the science. Thank you Dr Tour and Dr Zenil for being brave to stand up for the truth. Please get us more guys like you!! ❤

[@spracketskooch]

If I'm being charitable, I would say it's because the people in charge of allocating funding have zero understanding of science. They expect to see results overnight, and when that doesn't happen they pull funding. This creates an incentive to exaggerate the progress you've made in order to garner funding. Of course, it's probably a mix of everything, with each person having their own unique motivations.

[@expomm]

Ask Faucci

[@John777Revelation]

Based on Dr. Cronin's explanation of Assembly Theory being the predecessor of Selection, the foundation of assembly theory appears to require "memory" which is a product of Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence.

[@joshuadiamaro4415]

Accurate 🤣,yet at the same time they deny it because common 😒 where atheist here 😆😂,we can't allow that possibility.mind?, instructions/information that came from nowhere,No 😂 Pewwhh Information and instructions that cqnt be measured by any physical things

[@moonwish]

Dr Cronin intentionally doesn't use memory in its usual sense. In his paper he defines what he means by it. It is entirely physical, related to historical causation rather than any kind of intelligence. Physical things by their very nature contain information about what happened to them in the past, this doesn't need any consciousness whatsoever.

[@somethinsomethin7216]

A mind? No! Never!

[@alexnik1181]

A snowflake that fell on the ground and caught pollution on its way holds a "memory" of its past. Doesn't seem to be a product of a mind, consciousness or intelligence.

[@utopiabuster]

@moonwish , Seriously? "Information about what happened to "THEM" in the past"? The very language you use clearly defines "memory". Can you try to define consciousness, please? If a brain is made up of molecules and atoms, then where is memory stored? Thanks for playing.

[@tomyossarian7681]

Dover trials ruling, 2005: “Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3, of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."”

[@lawrence1318]

No. I.D is not religious.

[@tomyossarian7681]

@@lawrence1318 Great argument. ID lvl convincing. 🤭

[@lawrence1318]

@@tomyossarian7681 What I've said is correct. No part of I.D is religious.

[@tomyossarian7681]

@@lawrence1318 Oh, it is correct too! Darn, what an argumentation! No wonder you buying into crap, is it? 🤭

[@lawrence1318]

@@tomyossarian7681 What I've said stands unless refuted. Sorry. Rules of debate.

[@attila.the.honest]

Now, I've nothing against Hector Zenil, he seems a reputable scientist with extensive and relevant qualifications to talk about Cronin and his colleagues' ideas, though it puzzles me why he should want to associate himself with Tour. Maybe he isn't as distressingly familiar with Tour as the rest of us. But what I'd really want to listen to is a discussion between Cronin and Zenil. Now _that_ would have actually been informative and productive. Perhaps Tour was reluctant to invite Cronin based on his previous drudging. Having looked through a list of Zenil's publications, I'm not sure how many of them are directly relevant to the specific applications discussed by Cronin and colleagues, but I also didn't see anything refuting either abiogenesis or evolution, and only a handful with explicit reference to biomolecular systems, though no doubt others have indirect relevance. But he's just one of hundreds of scientists working on informational theory and its applications to real evolution, and Nature prefers shorter reference lists. But certainly Zenil has contributed to the field.

[@QCMP]

Lol, you're taking as if Tour's views about OOL aren't widely held in the scientific community.

[@attila.the.honest]

​@@QCMP They aren't. Now it's true that the scientific community in general agrees the pathway of abiogenesis has not yet been discovered - so do Cronin and colleagues, which is why they still engage in research. No-one on the planet is claiming it has been discovered. But what no-one in the scientific community, not even Zenil, agrees with is that Tour is right in claiming that neither abiogenesis nor evolution are possible. I think Zenil is right in saying the pathway to discovering how abiogenesis actually happened has a lot of practical and theoretical difficulties in front of it, and it's not going to be easy, if it's possible at all. Maybe he's right in saying the analysis of assembly theory by Cronin and colleagues isn't correct, or maybe it's too facile, that's a perfectly legitimate topic of scientific discussion. But what he doesn't claim, here or in his published work, is that a natural explanation is impossible, which is what Reverend Tour claims, without any scientific justification whatever. I just don't think Zenil knew what a total religious whackjob Tour has become. Tour used to be a decent scientist, now he just screams at folk who don't think Jesus did it.

[@QCMP]

@@attila.the.honest "But what no-one in the scientific community, not even Zenil, agrees with is that Tour is right in claiming that neither abiogenesis nor evolution are possible." That's not Tour's view. How can it be impossible when we all agree it happened? There was a time when life didn't exist. It exists now. Therefore, it follows that at some point in the past, abiogenesis (the origin of life from non-living matter) must have occured. What we don't know is how it might have happened. The same sentiments are expressed by even people like Richard Dawkins.

[@attila.the.honest]

@@QCMP I don't give a toss what Reverend Tour thinks. He's had nothing scientific to bring to this discussion. He's a Christian fundie with a literal belief in the bible, and to pretend he can set that aside to assess science objectively is the height of stupidity. Unlike Tour who believes in magic, the rest of scientists are agreed that a naturalistic, materialistic explanation of life is likely, because we've never, ever seen non-naturalistic, non-material explanations for anything, we just don't know how it happened.

[@QCMP]

​@@attila.the.honest "magic", "natural", "supernatural" etc. These are just words that have no meaning. We live in a universe where the act of observation causes wavefunction collpase, where a unique, unrepeatable event caused the origin of space-time, where particles can be quantum-entangled even if they are on opposite sides of the universe. If that's not supernatural, the word has meaning.

[@GodID7]

You guys should’ve invited the Dunning Kruger award winner of the year Dave Farina to explain to you how you don’t understand anything because the title of Kronin’s paper is clear.

[@johnmeredith6890]

Lol

[@Beef_it_to_be_fit]

Did you mean "winner of the year"? Genius.

[@wizardatmath]

He's just channeling Joker. Doesn't know anything at this level.

[@nealesmith1873]

God in the gaps is a ridiculous notion. Science can't explain the origin of the universe nor the origin of life. If God is in those gaps, then God can't be excluded from anything else. It's all or none, never just in gaps.

[@abject_geek]

It’s either God or nothing. It looks like nothing is not the answer here.

[@universalflamethrower6342]

​@@abject_geek what is this nothing you are talking about, can you describe it

[@pigzcanfly444]

Hence the Transcendental argument.

[@Tinesthia]

Misunderstanding what God of the Gaps is. Neat. We used to think God was the sole cause of lightning. We now know that is not the case. We used to thing God caused hurricanes. We now know about pressure systems and humidity. God is just a failure of an answer that people give to explain the gaps in our knowledge, to explain things that we don’t know what the natural cause is yet.

[@pigzcanfly444]

@Tinesthia rather God would be the one that applied the laws which cause the things you spoke about and regardless of gaps in mechanism this does nothing to remove God as a creator or cause of these things. When someone makes a cup of tea we can explain it mechanistically but there is also a purpose behind the tea and that is "I want a drink". Both the creator and the mechanism are necessary for explanatory power behind what we see in all of nature.

[@vinceventin459]

This interview is greatly appreciated. It shows how much integrity you have for getting to the facts. You didn't present yourself as an expert in all the areas of knowledge you needed to address but found Dr. Zenil who is able to address them with authority. It was clear that Dr. Cronin was being deceptive but this discussion shows just how hard he worked to delude people into thinking that Assembly Theory is providing any advances in proving materialistic evolution.

[@johndrumpf9888]

I don't think you actually understood Zenil's point, and Zenil himself is being deceptive. I happen to have decades of experience in Logical Depth, I worked at IBM TJ Watson when it was developed. There are MANY related areas in this field: Kolmogorov Complexity, Shannon Entropy, variants by Solomonoff and Chaitin, if you want to be nice, you can even include ideas that Goedel and Turing had on the subject, as well as Edward Fredkin. Claiming "not providing any advances" is dubious. Math is full of small incremental advances, or even theories which are identical to other theories up to an Isomorphism. Chaitin's Algorithmic Complexity Theory is very similar to Komogorovs, but no one calls Chaitin a charlatan or deceptive. It's the same subject matter presented in different wyas. Tour is using this to obscure the issue, because even if you completely discount Assembly Theory as a ripoff of Logical Depth or Algorithmic Information/Complexity theory, as Zenil explained, AIT/AIC/LD provide alternative explanations for why seemingly fantastical, rare sequences of events, can be actually be quite probable if the underlying mechanism has low information. For example let's say it looks like to produce a complex molecular of 50 atoms, it looks like flipping a coin 50 times raised to some power, or 1 in 2^50^x probability. Tour would say "impossible! this will never occur". But instead, the formation of those 50 atoms in sequence, is the result of subsequences, and those subsequences the results of other subsequences, all combined in repetition, then in fact, the underlying complexity is really the probability of generating these short independent sequences, not the full sequence. And indeed, the laws of physics may have a 'gradient' that tends to force some of these and lower the 'pure chance' aspect. I actually don't give a damn about assembly theory, but what I find amazing here is Tour is presenting science he doesn't understand debunks his own ideas on the difficulty of naturally synthesizing the molecules he claims are problematic. And that's because Tour isn't interested in honest exploration and science, he has a given result he wants (prove god must exist) and is looking for evidence of it by discounting all contrary evidence. Lee Cronin may even have a poor theory and be a poor scientist, but comes off a lot more open to true knowledge exploration than Tour does.

[@vinceventin459]

@@johndrumpf9888 Zenil stated that Cronin was incorrect in his assessments of Assembly Theory and was being deceptive. That part was clear. For each statement that Zenil made, Dr Tour summarized it. Zenil agreed with the summary. I believe I have a good understanding of the points that were made. There wasn't any religious doctrine used, just a discussion of the merits of Assembly Theory and Lee Cronin's use of it. The discussion didn't involve any further discussion of any other theories and their ability to prove abiogenesis. So, the basic point that Dr. Tour makes is still valid. Science is clueless on how life could have developed and evolved by purely materialistic, random and unguided means. I don't see anything deceptive in either Dr Tour or Dr Zenil. No smoke and mirrors, no techno-babble, simply an assessment of Dr Cronin's claims about Assembly Theory.

[@robertmize327]

@@johndrumpf9888 There's no "spark." In fact, the materials need the Supernatural and balk at laboratory intrusion. Best of the New Year, sir.

[@johndrumpf9888]

​@@vinceventin459 "Science is clueless on how life could have developed and evolved by purely materialistic, random and unguided means." No it isn't, and you clearly don't understand algorithmic information theory. There are lots of experiments that have shown how self-replicating automata can emerge naturally from randomness. It hasn't been demonstrated in actual atoms yet, because the experiments are much quicker to perform in simplified systems, but we clearly have clues pointing to how it could have happened. I mean, geezus, we've had Conways Game of Life for decades, wherein very simple "physics" + a totally randomized 2D grid lead to self-replicating structures like Gliders "naturally" And since then we've built far more complex examples, like Tierra. I really tire of people completely ignorant of the long history of this research, and utterly clueless people like Tour, who doesn't really understand information theory, trying to make conclusions that are completely wrong.

[@JessicaSunlight]

Spot on ♥

[@michaeld9682]

If you are getting attention from these guys, you are doing something right

[@sentientflower7891]

Who are "these guys"?

[@michaeld9682]

@@sentientflower7891 he challenged 10 people. He is getting some reaction from some of them

[@sentientflower7891]

@@michaeld9682 he did challenge ten people and Lee Cronin did respond, and that is good. There's been very little noise out of the Abiogenesis scientists celebrating Lee Cronin as the victor of the debate, which is interesting. All the response videos are from atheists, which is also interesting.

[@JohnSmith42374]

@@sentientflower7891 If I were an OoL researcher, I would be highly annoyed at Lee Cronin for making them all look like money-wasting buffoons. Perhaps some of them were regretful that they didn't attend so that at least someone from OoL would be discussing chemistry.

[@sentientflower7891]

@@JohnSmith42374 Lee Cronin did no such thing. Stop being shallow minded. Abiogenesis research isn't pointless and isn't futile even if Abiogenesis itself is a dead end.

[@John777Revelation]

*_"It is only at the semantic level that we really have meaningful information; thus, we may establish the following theorem: Theorem 14: Any entity, to be accepted as information, must entail semantics; it must be meaningful. Semantics is an essential aspect of information because the meaning is the only invariant property. The statistical and syntactical properties can be altered appreciably when information is represented in another language (e.g., translated into Chinese), but the meaning does not change. Meanings always represent mental concepts; therefore, we have: Theorem 15: When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender."_* Dr. Werner Gitt (Former Head of the Department of Information Technology at Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Germany)

[@hans-joachimbierwirth4727]

Bullshit!

[@DarkAryen]

Some videos are titled "Scientist destroyed by..." and are clickbait. This video in fact destroys Lee Cronin. It does respectful, scientifically and transparently, but it indeed fully destroys the credibility, results and false motivations behind Cronin. Please keep these whistleblowing videos coming!!

[@chrisdistant9040]

Yes, blow the whistle on published science! Expose that publicly available and internationally scrutinized information! Bring to light the known and visible things! What a hero!

[@JohnSmith42374]

@@chrisdistant9040 Glad you understand

[@fabiopaolobarbieri2286]

@@chrisdistant9040 I'm afraid your sarcasm is unintelligent. Plenty of stuff is published, which does not mean that it has ever been correctly assessed.

[@canamglobal]

Much needed clarification. Thanks Dr. Tour - you are the Best.

[@beanbean3535]

No he ain’t lol

[@moses777exodus]

Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability: ​ A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness. A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview. Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)

[@DartNoobo]

Let me answer you in a way every acknowledged and successful scientist would: "Go cry to you imaginary sky daddy, creationist psycho!"

[@thunderous-one]

When your premise is a lie, and let’s have it right, origin of life is a blatant lie/hoax/con, then all you can ever do is lie to defend it.

[@brendawilliams8062]

You have to have the right yes or no. Otherwise you’ll argue complexity, right?

[@thunderous-one]

@@brendawilliams8062 I will argue, life only comes from life, checkmate darwinoatheists.

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@thunderous-one The ☝️ One

[@thunderous-one]

@@brendawilliams8062 agreed.

[@nitsujism]

@@thunderous-one God doesn't fulfil the criteria of being classed as 'alive' (no biology, no metabolism etc). So I think your argument just shoots yourself in the foot.

[@timothysparks6949]

This is a video I have to watch 10 times to barely grasp 10% of the information presented 😭😂. Incredible discussion. Thank you for sharing!

[@JessicaSunlight]

you gotta do your homework 🙂

[@timothysparks6949]

@JessicaSunlight yep! ....and videos like these make me want to do my homework happily 😊

[@philipatoz]

Professor Tour is a nightmare for these so-called expert academics to debate. He doesn't argue science with them per a spiritual perspective, but a scientific one - which they KNOW they cannot refute. So they go off and attack him as a clueless creationist with unsubstantiated contentions. But many of the academics, while non-theists, nonetheless can see that Tour's critics are like the "King that has no clothes" - as they have zero credible arrows in their scientific quivers, merely attacking him and spouting their same old, redundantly refuted "garbage!"

[@johndrumpf9888]

Tour is a joke outside of his narrow domain and got demolished by a KZbinr. If you watched the complete video of Tour at dinner with the other academics, HE WAS AN UTTER EMBARASSMENT. He was so bad, I felt sorry for him and was cringing hard.

[@nitsujism]

@@johndrumpf9888 It was truly cringeworthy...watching Tour hunched over at that dinner table listening to the other Harvard attendees...

[@philipatoz]

@@johndrumpf9888 - so, I'm sure you can evidentially answer just ONE of his questions, in a way that will be evidence and research-based. Because NO one else has been able to spout anything beyond speculation and wild theories. So YOU can do that which NO other research team has ever done before? I won't hold my breath!

[@indljoe]

Thank you Dr. Tour for being beacon of light as a scientist. Question to Dr. James Tour: Why is Prof. Cronin is still an atheist? Hope and pray that you are going to have a conversation with Prof. Cronin regarding spirituality and faith.

[@1VFA666]

_Why is Prof. Cronin is still an atheist?_ Probably because he learned to think critically and rejects claims which are unsupported by any evidence.

[@davidstricklin3267]

I think it was 2017 when Lee Cronin described his own organic chemistry aptitude in very disparaging terms (recorded for all to see) It’s no wonder he wanted to talk about assembly theory. The debate was billed as being about OOL but hard for anyone (except fawning Harvard attendees) to see the link. Pretty obvious Cronin put the ABRA CADABRA on them. Having said that Dr. Tour has done his rebuttal to assembly theory and should go back to his own area of (considerable) expertise.

[@mccaboy]

Yes rebut and don't give this abracadabra myth any more waste of time and effort.

[@John777Revelation]

*_"Language: All Digital communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful."_* (Wikipedia: Digital Data) Inherent in DNA is language. Language is scientifically confirmed to be the product of only Mind/ Consciousness / Intelligence.

[@templarroystonofvasey]

Not an expert, I just couldn't resist - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

[@JohnSmith42374]

Yes, I've seen objections to this by stating that "DNA isnt a code, it's a molecule". Or "DNA simply interacts naturalistically with other molecules, what we measure is what we call information, a human construct"

[@DartNoobo]

​@@JohnSmith42374a computer program is not a code, it's just a string of zeros and ones. A book doesn't contain information, only a configuration of ink blots. Or even better - a book is not a storage of information, it is a physical object

[@JohnSmith42374]

@@DartNoobo Yes, the functional outcome is directed by code, the information is primary, the medium is secondary. "After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital..." (Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden, 16.) "Language: All Digital communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful." (Wikipedia: Digital Data). A quarternary code is embedded upon the DNA molecule, and conservation of information means that this information is greater than or equal to the specified outcome in proteins, RNA the rest of the cell. The information doesnt originate in the transistors of the hard drive, it originates in the mind of the programmer that transfers is to the hard drive with a translation convention.

[@DartNoobo]

@@JohnSmith42374 to which i must reply:"Information is just a human concept!" This way I can dismiss whatever you throw at me and maintain my intellectual superiority in my own eyes!

[@tarynstouffer3282]

God Bless Dr. Tour! The truth will set us free!

[@nexpro6985]

Unfortunately Tour does not want to tell you the truth.

[@crackheadbiden3273]

@@nexpro6985 Give us details of these lies. I’ll bet you have no actual education and are just upset because creation has more evidence.

[@stultusvenator3233]

Tour needs to learn what honesty and integrity are this performance art just won't cut it.

[@nitsujism]

@@crackheadbiden3273Creation has absolutely zero evidence. None at all.

[@crackheadbiden3273]

@@stultusvenator3233 You need to tell us specifically what he is dishonest about. Bet you aren’t educated enough to do it.

[@RayLopez-g2e]

Thank you Dr Tour for your braveness and integrity, appreciate Dr Zenil as well for his honesty. WE NEED MEN LIKE THESE. GREETINGS FROM MEXICO

[@MarcelinhoTheRock]

Youre a great man of God Doctor, keep your great TOUR for the souls, your reward in the heavens will be enormous. i thanks God for make His Grace reach you

[@larrytate1657]

James, one of the smartest scientistists and they try to discredit you because you speak passionately. Crazy.

[@mesenteria]

It was a privilege to listen to this, but I am also grateful for the 'bot' for recommending it to me here on The Tube.

[@attila.the.honest]

If you like drivel, you'll love Reverend Tour!

[@joemiller9856]

Great video Jim! As a former Analytical Chemist and CIO this was a very interesting indeed.

[@FuuponLahayu]

I was looking for this video on KZbin, but because I had restricted mode on, I only got a lot of video's from Dave Farina. Why is your video restricted, while Dave Farina's video's are not?

[@morganpauls1873]

youtube has a plethora of motives have you noticed there's also now particular videos that don't have the like button?

[@oldhunterdraveris3940]

Thank you Dr. Tour for shedding light on this scandal and your guest. His insight of the OOL community mixing half truths to save their deceptive theory is a really eloquent way of articulating how their position is dogmatically peddled around.

[@roscius6204]

No scandal this is damage control. He knows full well that in the safety of his niche supporters he can simply lie and get away with it.

[@oldhunterdraveris3940]

Well put! It is such a shame that this is how a lot of "modern science" is conducted, I think it truly does a disservice to genuine discoveries, possibly taking grants away from other labs that could be working in theories that are accurate and true to objective reality. Instead we get these delusions of grandeur papers re inventing the wheel

[@dankmartin6510]

You guys arent getting paid enough to make stuff up and it really shows.@@roscius6204

[@MultipleGrievance]

​@@roscius6204 Which lies would those be?

[@moses777exodus]

Regarding Assembly Hypothesis, is it possible to determine the Assembly Index (AI) of polypeptides? If so, what would be the AI for polypeptides?

[@TheTaysoren]

Lee just tried to hawk his "Assembly Theory" the whole time; it looked like a self promotion. It reminded me of that Onion News network "Congress Debates Merits Of New Catchphrase".

[@Billb9I3]

I had a meme in mind...Cronin with a magician's hat, magic wand saying "abracadabra, its magic"

[@RivBank-o3j]

And did you know your God taught do universe in to the world out of nothing abracadabra the universe is created and if you say there was nothing before the big bang go to cosmetology class

[@moses777exodus]

Assembly Theory Hypothesis: Using Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence created computer algorithms to possibly detect cosmic objects that were potentially created by a Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence (Abridged)

[@pureflix8086]

Id like to see evidence of what you allegedly promised to the people who put the roundtable together, namely that you "...wouldnt speak unless [you] were spoken to, wouldnt interrupt, and if someone interrupted [you], [you] would yield the floor to them." It sounds to me like youre simply trying to play the victim to garner sympathy, just like your "self-deprecating" "joke" about what your "poor wife has to go through".

[@ikemiracle4841]

Lee Cronin couldn't defend his stand on origin of life, he only started talking history and other stuff about how science works. But we all know that science progresses, no one argues that. When one starts to bring up something that doesn't make sense to the data and call it science, it should be taken down immediately and not treated as a fact and shoved down the throat of students.

[@John777Revelation]

*_"After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital..."_* (Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden, 16. Dr. Richard Dawkins is widely regarded as the world’s foremost expert on Darwinian Evolution)

[@davidbell2547]

Information can only come from a mind

[@genomicmaths]

It is really sad to see that Lee Cronin's Assembly Theory intent to dismiss the results from Kolmogorov-Solomonov-Chaitin's Algorithmic Information Theory (perhaps because he is not enough familiar with mathematics and information theory). Come on, we are talking about one of the giants from the history of 20th century mathematics: Kolmogorov, without disregarding the enormous contributions from Solomonov and Chaitin . Everything in Algorithmic Information Theory is founded in solid mathematical theorems.

[@JohnSmith42374]

As seen in Cronin et al Assembly Theory 2023, they are intent on rewriting terms and definitions in which they have not cited a single algorithm, despite it being the technical core of their paper.

[@attila.the.honest]

Let's suppose that Cronin's assembly theory is total BS. So what? If Cronin is wrong about that, how does that magically disprove abiogenesis?

[@attila.the.honest]

The work by Lee Cronin and colleagues was published on Oct 4, in Nature 622, pages 321-328 (2023): Assembly theory explains and quantifies selection and evolution. Now this isn't a mathematical treatment of evolution I've ever looked into so I don't consider myself qualified to comment on either the originality or utility of this paper. Obviously it's based on a lot of preceding work, the novel claim seems to be mainly that it provides a better general description of self-organising systems and their evolution at the molecular scale. Still, as a biochemist I don't think it's sufficient in and of itself to demonstrate how abiogenesis happened. We need actual molecular mechanisms before we can be happy about that, but it does give a theoretical backdrop to the argument that there is nothing in physics, chemistry or thermodynamics mitigating against abiogenesis or the self-organisation of living organisms. It doesn't tell us - nor does it pretend to - what came first in the process of abiogenesis: lipids, carbohydrates, nucleotides, peptides, or maybe something that isn't quite any of those. Or maybe it was some combination of some or all of it. If there is anyone qualified to critique the work and analysis presented in this paper, published in a prestigious and peer-reviewed journal, perhaps they could point us to where Cronin and his colleagues go wrong, with specific reference to arguments made in the paper.

[@attila.the.honest]

I posted this 16 hours ago, I note that no Christian apologist has flocked to it to disprove Cronin and his hypotheses. I guess they just have a religious objection to reading papers in Nature! Or understanding them. But clearly, they have no rebuttal.

[@adalbertred]

That was not a debate. That was a round table. But, at this stage in the conversation, we are no longer surprised by your dishonesty.

[@LyubomirIko]

Very reminiscent of how science and engineering in USSR was conducted. You could have excellent ideas but if you aren't friend of the Party you couldn't go anywhere professionally.

[@pJ005-k9i]

Atheists being Totalitarian? I am shocked, Shocked I say

[@QuixEnd]

You're extremely unprofessional with debates and don't even attempt to have a genuine discussion. This isn't how anyone with an open desire for truth handles themselves

[@fatdoctor007]

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS

[@codonmatrix4510]

Tour is right, the more we learn about the chemistry of life, the further the goalpost for life arising on it's own gets.

[@attila.the.honest]

It would be hard to know less about chemistry of life than Reverend Tour.

[@attila.the.honest]

But you succeed. :)

[@Melkor3001]

I agree Codon. We are no where near discovering the true extent of how the genetic code operates or what other information/coding/instructions are behind building organisms. The data storage in DNA doesn’t seem enough. A lot more with be uncovered in the coming decades. I’m not sure origins research could ever be valid without fully understanding what we are trying to explain.

[@codonmatrix4510]

@@Melkor3001 Well, here's the rub. If abiogenesis is simple enough that it can happen in a purely random unguided process, they should be able to show us how by now, and not constantly keep demurring by saying, "any day now." If it was simple enough to have happened in the past, they should have had no trouble duplicating it today with all of our current tech. Yet, all we get are vague empty promises that come to nothing. If it's simple enough to just happen by itself, we should be able to do it NOW. Waiting for new tech to arrive to create something that supposedly required no tech at all in the ancient past, seems like someone is trying to sell us a pig in a poke, and are doing nothing but a sting op. Grifters by any other name.

[@JohnSmith42374]

@@codonmatrix4510 Well, the philosophy is to try replicate supposed conditions of early earth under which abiogenesis could have spontaneously occurred. The problem is that even if they never proof abiogenesis in a lab, they can say that the conditions are an astronomically rare fluke. So proof isn't even needed. All of this just avoids the direct answer that design is the best inference right now, and can be formulated scientifically so that if you want to dismiss design, you need to dismiss most of the historical scientific views. Intelligent design as a hypothesis is not singling out the designer, only interested in demonstrating the effects of design is evident. Only rabidly unscientific atheists whine about the God of the Bible in these talks.

[@ashsharp1985]

Prof Dave is a 🤡 He edited your Harvard Appearance in such a slimey way.

[@ashsharp1985]

@Robert-ct6bc Dave is going through PTSD. He did not address any of James points

[@ashsharp1985]

@Robert-ct6bc daves videos? Dave is a 🤡 I watched alot of them however he just attacks this professor and is unable to answer the fundamental questions proposed James. Am i missing something?

[@ashsharp1985]

@Robert-ct6bc whos jimmy?

[@ashsharp1985]

@Robert-ct6bc dave is a 🤡 I watched a few. He is not a scientist. He is a 'Gaps in God' finder

[@danielprout8987]

I tried hard but this was painful. I truly love Dr. Tour, he is a true warrior for the truth.

[@MichaelClarke1646]

Definitely Madame Mandelbbrot, I often like to think about BARRENNESS Buttplug, not to mention Fraulein suckle stick, aand Fraulein Dip thong. Thanks forr asking.

[@MichaelClarke1646]

@MichaelClarke1646 0 seconds ago Definitely Madame Mandelbbrot, I often like to think about Baroness Buttplug, not to mention Fraulein suckle stick, and Fraulein Dip thong. Thanks for asking. So sorry, I misspelled a word.

[@roscius6204]

the truth is painful He's a grifter...

[@miltonwetherbee5489]

So, for anyone wondering why Dr. Zenil is saying that Lee is wrong about assembly theory not being a compression algorithm, and why he says that compression algorithms can measure entropy, or complexity, let me break down the concepts. So, let's consider image files. Let's say we have an all black square that's surrounded by a white border, and we'll stipulate that this image is 2MP. Let's compare that with a normal 2MP image of something with lots of colors arranged in a complex design. In the above example, both images are comprised of the same number of pixels. However, the black and white image of the square is much less complex and can therefore be compressed more, meaning the file size is smaller. Now, if we simply take a 2MP image of a field of colorful flowers, that image is even more complex than the complicated design example from above. Unlike the other two, it is organic in its complexity. The other two wouldn't be considered organic as I'm using the term, but would be more along the lines of geometric. So, in order of complexity from least complex to more complex, you have the black and white square image, the complex colored geometric design, and the colorful image of the field. And that's the same order if we go from most compressible to least compressible. What this means is that the more compressible something is, the less complex it is. And since entropy and complexity are related, compression algorithms can be used to measure both complexity and entropy. It should be noted that complexity and entropy don't have a 1 to 1 correlation since while the universe is increasing in entropy we do get various types of ordered complexity, such as the formation of crystals and life...but, generally speaking, compression algorithms do measure complexity and entropy.

[@attila.the.honest]

Well, I'm not here to defend assembly theory. As a biochemist, what I would point out is that we don't actually need it to figure out how abiogenesis and evolution work. And let's make no mistake, the Tours of the world have both as the targets of their religious ire. So as far as I'm concerned, Cronin could be completely mistaken about it. I'm not saying he is, I'm just saying I don't care one way or the other. I think the reason he proposed it was to be able to identify signals from extra-terrestrial life, but the problem is, signals can have many different origins. I doubt an algorithm can identify it reliably, and I don't think we're going to know about it for sure till we encounter it in its physical form. There are some possibilities for this on a couple of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn - Europa and Enceladus, respectively. It's currently thought that subsurface liquid water exists on those. I'm curious as to what people like Tour would make of life there. Probably, they'd just deny it, and claim it's a NASA conspiracy.

[@miltonwetherbee5489]

​@@attila.the.honest one, the implications of what Dr. Zenil is saying in this video is that there are already better algorithms for detecting signals that would indicate life. It doesn't matter if we're talking about signals, chemical composition, or anything else. It's all data. And the complexity of that data is what suggests if we're looking at life or non-life. So it doesn't matter if your guess about why Dr. Cronan came up with assembly theory is right or not, it's not new, it doesn't have any application that can't be better done by other algorithms, and he either didn't understand that or he's being very deceitful. As for the other bit, some form of life on Europa or anywhere else beyond our planet doesn't automatically discount or cause problems for Christianity. Think about the logic of the argument. There's life beyond our planet, therefore it's less likely that God exists. How does that make for a sound argument? There's an obvious possibility that God does exist and caused life other places besides Earth. The Bible doesn't say that there's no life beyond that of the life here on Earth. So, the possibility of life elsewhere doesn't have an impact one way or the other regarding the existence of God or Dr. Tour's or my belief in Christianity. Feel free to try to explain why it should, I'm curious what you think. Lastly, regardless of why Lee is putting Assemble Theory forward, and regardless of what life elsewhere may mean, none of that had anything to do with my comment, which was just a breakdown of why Assembly Theory is, despite Lee's claims, a compression algorithm.

[@miltonwetherbee5489]

@@attila.the.honest ok, let's consider fusion. If someone says that they're close to figuring out fusion where we get significant enough useable energy output from material we have in abundance, you, and a lot of other people might call BS. Now, in all honesty, we have made a lot of progress with fusion. But, are we only a few years away from realizing it, or is it more like months or centuries? Now, personally, I think we're making decent progress with fusion and that we might figure out how to use it to provide us energy before I die. Now, let's consider abiogenesis (Origin of Life). We've made a lot of progress in it. However, I seriously doubt we will figure it out in my lifetime. I don't hold much hope of it being figured out in my great great grandchildren's lifetimes. There are some seriously difficult problems that we need to solve. And, when it comes to those problems, we don't know how to overcome them yet. Not only that, but we really don't know how to begin to overcome them. We tend to put those on the backburner while we try to figure out some of the seemingly less difficult problems. I mean, you can know millions of things regarding abiogenesis, but if there's billions of things you have to know, relatively speaking, you know nothing. 1,000,000/1,000,000,000 = 1/1,000 = 0.001 = 0.1%. So, the truth is, OoL isn't very close to figuring out how life could have started since, regardless of how much they've figured out, they still have a long ways to go. That's not a statement based on a belief that Christianity is true. That's a conclusion based on what we know vs what we know that we don't know. That's not even taking into consideration what we don't know that we don't know. I'm not saying that we don't know tons of stuff relevant to OoL. I'm saying that compared to what we still have to figure out, and the difficulty of much of the stuff that we still have to figure out what we currently know is laughably tiny. People conclude that because Dr. Tour is a Christian, he's coming to his conclusion that we don't know nearly enough about OoL to be able to figure it out any time soon because it fits his Christian beliefs. He's not doing that. If you listen to him, he walks us through what these papers show that we've figured out. He walks us through how that doesn't give us what we really need, or doesn't work with some other chemistry being used to get something else, so that the two products that need to be created and then work together are created in such a way that there's no chance of them coming into contact with each other to work together the way they need to. So, you have Substance A which needs to interact with Substance B. We figure out that Substance A can be created under Condition A and Substance B can be created under Condition B. Only Condition A and Condition B are vastly different from each other such that Substances A & B don't form anywhere close to each other, or they can form in the same location but that it would take years for Condition A to change to Condition B, and by that time Substance A has completely broken down so that by the time Substance B forms, there's no more Substance A. Dr. Tour gives a scientific analysis of some of what we've got to overcome, why it's so important, and why it's so difficult for us to figure out. But somehow, none of that matters. What matters is that he's a Christian and therefore he's concluding that we aren't close to solving it because it goes against Christianity and therefore it goes against what he believes. Never mind that the existence of a natural process that brings about life wouldn't go against the Christian belief. Never mind that we've had repeated claims by various scientists that they'll be able to create life in so many years, and those deadlines have all come and gone. It also won't matter in 50 years if we still haven't figured out OoL, people will still think Dr. Tour is wrong and that he's letting his beliefs cloud his judgement. So, forgive me if I don't give your comment and credence.

[@marieparker3822]

I've noticed that very often when an interlocutor knows really in their own mind that your argument against their assertions is unassailable, they accuse you of 'shouting'.

[@JonnyCinquo]

Calling an open round table discussion a debate is very weird. Weirdo. Why are you this way?

[@eleanormaxwell721]

I am not even going to pretend that I know what they are talking about.

[@sonnyeastham]

I've always been behind you, Dr Tour.....please keep going. Thank you, kindly, sir.

[@roscius6204]

There's your problem.

[@morganpauls1873]

@@roscius6204 theres no value to the words of those whose domain is not the topic on which they speak there's your problem your words say nothing actually say something of worth your words are like a vacuum except of less worth than even that what a vacuum could achieve

[@peterwillcox9429]

Dr Zenil you are to be congratulated on having the moral core that says truth is more important than a philosophical view. If we are to proceed in science, worldviews may drive the way we think but we must not allow our philosophical worldview to mask the truth of science. This is a fantastic video having 2 completely opposite worldviews collaborating to gain an understanding of the natural world. Someday science may discover an algorithm which explains life but we still haven’t answered where the algorithm came from. This is the question as individuals we can only answer for ourselves and we shouldn’t be threatened by the other side for the answer we apply to our life.

[@ricardopulido3956]

Hello Dr. Tour, God bless. Can you please also post 10 to 20 min summaries of your debates? It is KEY that people take away the generalities and most importantly, the conclusions. Then, with more time, all can watch the 2 hours video. Please consider it. Thanks.

[@likeahouseonfire]

Many people do what you’re talking about and review their debates. Do you feel it takes away from the subjectivity by doing that? Haters will say it’s “cope” “damage control” etc, do you think there’s legitimacy to those “critiques?”

[@pigzcanfly444]

A lot of people are claiming that Tour is posting an edited debate, so that will only lend credence to this notion. I recommend everyone to simply watch the debate for yourself and see the lackluster rhetoric that Cronin had to crank out in order to escape answering the very sensible questions that Dr Tour has been asking for 7 years now.

[@lloydolayvar1641]

Thanks Dr. Zenil for exposing what Assembly Theory is. Thanks Dr. Tour for explaining Dr. Zenil's presentation. I learned something. Will watch this video again several times.

[@johndrumpf9888]

Evidently, you didn't understand a work Zenil said, because basically, LogicalDepth/Algorithmic Complexity Theory, on which Assembly Theory basically duplicates, has the same implications for OoL that assembly theory does. In short, it says life occurring naturally has higher probability than it otherwise would from pure statistical chance on the sequences forming according to their size. Why is it that all of Tour's fans don't seem to have a math or engineering background and have no clue what's actually being said?

[@lloydolayvar1641]

Exactly, duplicates

[@lloydolayvar1641]

Not novel

[@johndrumpf9888]

@@lloydolayvar1641 Irrelevent, because the theory it's isomorphic to, largely undermines creationism and Tour. It's like if i copied the theory of evolution, called it "Protolution" or something, and I get called out for making a duplicate. Welp, both versions are scientifically valid, backed by evidence, and undermine your position. Ooops.

[@buddhapurplecash6889]

Omg posting this on your own channel shows how brave u are or how clueless u are, do u think this went in a good way for you?

[@cab6273]

When it comes to the probability of Life forming randomly without a Creator, OOL scientists always channel Han Solo from the asteroid scene in The Empire Strikes Back: "Never tell me the odds!"

[@gladishilton1943]

Even the longest odds are better than no odds.

[@attila.the.honest]

Well, where does this hypothetical creator of yours come from? What are the odds of god(s)? I'd roughly calculate the odds of life originating as 99.9999% - after all, we are here! And if we find alien life of any sort, we might as well conclude life is inevitable in a universe like this, a nice, round 100%.

[@attila.the.honest]

@@gladishilton1943 Indeed. ;) Seriously, though, I don't think any of us are in a position to calculate such odds, whether we are atheists or god-botherers.

[@jarrettesselman8144]

@@attila.the.honestyou are China.

[@cab6273]

@@attila.the.honest I’m sorry, I thought it was obvious I was referring to probability of life evolving randomly with no creator.

[@theophilusmann7869]

Dr. Zenil and Dr. Tour have not only dismantled Lee Cronin's work, but very likely his career. His future in OOL research is on life support.

[@Fluxion11]

Cronin's assembly theory is like a grade school science project. Total garbage.

[@davidstricklin3267]

What about the gullible attendees who failed to recognize the lack of originality (being charitable here) or the fact that Cronin was not talking about OOL in any meaningful way. Perhaps he could apply this to a living cell but as Tour points out there are a huge number of steps to creating even the most basic cell and current proposals such as RNA World don’t even get to molecular structure without huge input and certainty not in prebiotic conditions. Harvard apparently not interested in details or exposing the truth. Cronin gave them some (appropriated) gobbledygook which they were more than willing to swallow.

[@sentientflower7891]

Dr. Lee Cronin is a busy scientist and isn't exclusively involved in origin of life research so his position is secure. Even if he is wrong about something that is the price of thinking.

[@theophilusmann7869]

@sentientflower7891 I am curious what your thoughts are in 47:44? Hector is indicating that he offered to assist Cronin before he published it. So, this appears to be more than a one-off for Cronin.

[@sentientflower7891]

@@theophilusmann7869 since I have no information about what Hector offered and why Lee Cronin refused I can have no opinion.

[@markrutledge5855]

Long ago I watched a Lee Cronin video and found him to be a sloppy thinker. He speaks lots of words but says very little. He makes giant intellectual leaps and unsupported extrapolations. I think he is the poster boy for James Tour's basic critique of Origins of Life research.

[@attila.the.honest]

And your evidence against a natural origin of life is...? Of course, it's your bible. How could I be so daft as to miss that. You like believing in magic.

[@markrutledge5855]

@@attila.the.honest Where did I say anything about religion in my critique of Cronin? When did Zenil raise the question of religious belief with respect to origin of life research? For that matter, when has Tour ever raised religious questions to origin of life research? Stay on topic.

[@attila.the.honest]

@@markrutledge5855 This is Reverend Tour's channel. The reason he objects to evolution and abiogenesis is because they aren't in his bible. Tell me, do you think the earth is flat? After all, a globe earth isn't in the bible either. And if you don't think it's flat, what's the evidence for it being a globe? And if you accept evidence for the earth being a globe, why won't you accept evidence for evolution?

[@markrutledge5855]

@@attila.the.honest You are just being silly.

[@attila.the.honest]

@@markrutledge5855 You're just being a creotard.

[@flecksrandomstuff4593]

I like when you speak louder, it shows your frustration, we all would shout if some "teacher" would says that 2+2 is 5...! Keep being yourself! Thanks for the work you do!

[@attila.the.honest]

Yup, Rev Tour is a right screamer - he can out-do a whole school of toddlers!

[@morganpauls1873]

technically if you account for 2=1 then 2+2= 1 because 2 is 1 and 1 is one and a half then cause 2 is 1 so there's 2 then 3 cause 2 would be one and a half and then 4 then 5 cause 2=1=1 half and then 6 cause 2 is 3 and then 7 cause 2=1=1 and a half + itself = 7

[@parabellum4622]

There's no way you can be this dishonest and still have a channel. This comment section full of extremely gullible people who lack the actual awarness they're being lied to extensively. We can go back over this entire debate where you're screamed at the top of your lungs to communicate. Furthermore you interrupted several times the evidence is quite literally in the interview before your eyes.

[@TBT.Stories]

I don't think people trust his person... I think that he is a bit of a disservice to his message (about science, not religion). And that is why this other dude came on this conversation. At the end, we are not going to understand the matter for ourselves, so listening and watching discussions (and the reactions of professionals) is the only kind of information we have. I think Tour may be the 120 best person to do what he is doing, but he is one of the few that try (probably because of his "blind" faith, which sometimes gives people some integrity and courage)

[@jarrettesselman8144]

@@TBT.Storiesyou are fake. You are a google scam.

[@pigzcanfly444]

I watched the debate. Tour never screamed. You guys are ridiculous. Also Tour accurately predicted the things that Cronin would do and with 100% accuracy to boot. It's a tragedy people have to put up with such biased stupidity from fake accounts on YT.

[@parabellum4622]

@@pigzcanfly444 Then you're definitely being dishonest anyone can watch that debate and objectively watch Tour scream nearly throughout the entire debate. The fact that you can type that out and habitually lie in plain text is absolutely atrocious.

[@jarrettesselman8144]

@@pigzcanfly444 it’s this way on every social platform. It’s a gaslighting machine. None of it is real. The online atheist is artificial intelligence and it is programmed to deceive and gaslight just to keep you engaged.