Molecules Don't Care About Life! (2023 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith)

What does the science REALLY show about the origin of life? Renowned chemistry professor James Tour and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer explain. This session was part of the 2023 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith sponsored by Discovery Institute.
A synthetic organic chemist, James Tour is the T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Materials Science and Nano-Engineering at Rice University. Stephen Meyer directs the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. He is author of the New York Times-bestseller "Darwin’s Doubt" (2013) as well as the books "Signature in the Cell (2009) and "Return of the God Hypothesis" (2021).
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official KZbin channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit www.discovery.org/id/
www.evolutionnews.org/
www.intelligentdesign.org/
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter:
Twitter: / discoverycsc
Facebook: / discoverycsc
Instagram: / discoverycsc
Visit other KZbin channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute: / discoveryinstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: / drstephenmeyer

[@stevelawrie7087]

I could listen to the passionate J.Tour and S. Meyer for hours and hours. Wonderful stuff.

[@canadiankewldude]

*_God Bless_*

[@lutherstanislaus3362]

Totally

[@simeonmartin3514]

I have

[@RWin-fp5jn]

indeed! Hallelujah! This video is a shining gem in the current dark times! An absolute must see for anyone who is open to both science and intelligent design of life. James is just on an absolute tear, handing down one brilliantly presented argument after the other, and it is obvious he speaks from the heart. Stephen in an equally intelligent way finishes things off right at the end of this video; ‘..The very fact it takes incredible intelligence of researchers to mimic the origin of life form cosmic soup precisely strengthens the case for intelligent design..’ Brilliant! But let’s not be too harsh on the materialistic biogenesis camp. Scientific progress is often propelled by having two opposing camps. And even if their message of ‘almost there’ is not truthful, it appears necessary to get funding from which the entire field profits. Now besides all the praise, I do have a pressing suggestion how to bolster the quest for intelligent design. We may want to focus less on biochemistry and more on the geometry of specifically microtubules which permeate and connect every cell in our body. Why microtubules? Because their geometry structure enables quantum physical processes which may offer clearer answers as to the non-local (!) vehicle of coding for life and consciousness. Roger Penrose and Stuart Hamerhoff produced ground breaking research (Orch OR) linking the structure of said microtubiles to the emergence of consciousness, a related topic! The essence is in the nature of quantum physics (QP). What’s so special about QP? Well, in QP the ‘grid’ in which processes take place is not defined by space, but by energy. Moreover, the QP clock is defined by mass, not time. Most prominent this is displayed at quantum leaps in atoms, where electrons jump between eV distanced energy orbitals, which cost mass (not time!). Since the structure of microtubules is a fixed geometry of 3D grid static charges (e.g.H bridges), it can be argued that in the QP sense (where energy is the grid) these microtubules ARE connected to any other microtubules with identical 3D energetic geometry REGARDLESS (current) position in space and time. That is literally what ‘entanglement’ in QP means. So we might be looking at self-organising entanglement via microtubules where no organism is truly separated from like organisms as spatial distance is not the only way define distance. This would also explain the immense complex behaviour / consciousness of e.g. single celled organism like Lacrymaria.

[@michaelszczys8316]

Molecules don't care about life. It cracks me up when I hear someone describe the origin of the universe or of life and they actually make the remark or make it sound like the ' molecules ' themselves have their own minds and can see and make decisions. Or one - celled organisms can make choices.

[@galileog8945]

Well, actually there are forces in nature (not supernatural) that allow large systems of molecules to organize themselves in complex systems. Take a perfect crystal. How do the molecules know where to go? Large-scale self-organization is ubiquitous in nature, from turbulent fluids to spiral galaxies, and none of these systems require objects to "know where to go". Your instinct to crack up when you hear about spontaneous generation of life is due to ignorance. Essentially no one in science believes that to start life you need anything else other than the physical laws we have already discovered. Life is a manifestation of the combinatorial properties of matter, nothing more.

[@rebanelson607]

They CAN'T make choices. That's the point. They can only act in the way their chemistry and organization will allow. Even if they could care it wouldn't do any good because they can't change their composition.

[@KenJackson_US]

It sounds like you're agreeing with Dr.Tour and Dr.Meyer, Michael, as well you should.

[@KenJackson_US]

@@galileog8945: _"Life is a manifestation of the combinatorial properties of matter, ..."_ It sounds like you didn't watch the video. There are NO _"combinatorial properties of matter"_ that can explain the origin of chirally pure molecules or especially of the specified information content of cells. Life was designed. Any other belief is based on mythology.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@KenJackson_US ID has been proved false IN COURT, sorry but you're wrong and even if you were right your god only allows for things to appear to be made naturally, you're another one so egotistical that you forgot what your on god says. FAITH, not proof. tour can ONLY show "nature did it"

[@phchin6209]

All researches in science point to the greatest Programmer, God.

[@kban77]

Nope. None of the research does. Complex doesn’t require a jump to some unknown further complexity

[@jimr1461]

Our does of you want to increase complexity and that is required consistently and constantly for functional improvement.

[@kban77]

What you wrote doesn’t make sense. Just like intelligent design

[@jaimeapablaza8041]

​@@jimr1461what?

[@Assad966]

God's proper Name is ALLAH.

[@pichytechno6782]

Even if they got to create one of those, would it still mean they appeared by chance? In any case that would mean the opposite.

[@raygiordano1045]

It's very ironic that OoL scientists lose no matter the outcome of their work!

[@tonymaurice4157]

Even with all the clever manipulations and designed equipment they don't get very far

[@conspiracy1914]

they cannot. thats the best part. they will lie about it deceive at some point but they need to put in a soul. so they cannot

[@jimr1461]

Actually, science improves. It isn't and either or argument, it becomes, ok, this is beyond what we can do

[@goodman4093]

Chance of the gap argument is non scientific. Rather say what force in nature is driving this process

[@BabyBugBug]

Why do we not show this to our young people and instead mislead them or outright lie to them?

[@kenjileach]

When I was taking HS biology in 1971 and learning about the Theory of Evolution,. It amazed me that with so little information claims of knowing the Origin of Life were being used to predict that science was on the verge of creating life (one cell) . The Devil is in the Details" Thank you so much and please keep providing this great insight and appreciation for our amazing Design.:)

[@VirtuelleWeltenMitKhan]

I think it's already the first mistake to introduce biology and to apply it only there. Evolution is a fundamental concept that occurs not only in biology and chemistry. If one were to explain evolution completely independently of biology, perhaps one wouldn't encounter the conceptual problems later on. Biology and chemistry bring their own complexity and unnecessarily complicate the understanding of evolution. It's a pity really, because evolution itself is extremely simple.

[@IronPoorBlood]

"No one has taken my life away from Me, but I lay it down on My own. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it back. This commandment I received from My Father.”

[@Gandoff2000]

Wow. They could probably create "life" in 6 days if they knew how.

[@JamesKing2understandinglife]

LOL

[@oz-kr5vu]

Nice! 💯

[@denvan3143]

Six days to create life? That’s nothing, evolutions think the universe happened instantaneously. 😄

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

Great video! God is a logical necessity. Materialism is a logical fallacy.

[@niculaelaurentiu1201]

I don't understand how you come to that conclusion

[@JappaKneads]

​@@niculaelaurentiu1201whose fault is that?😅

[@denvan3143]

As it is understood the universe had a beginning, of necessity matter had an origin in the finite past. Materialism cannot explain this because the material could not have been its own cause. God is therefore a logical necessity. And, as materialism cannot explain the origin of matter in the finite past, it is a fallacy. ​​⁠@@niculaelaurentiu1201

[@aposematicayu]

Love this synthesis of the research.

[@jaykanta4326]

Where is it PUBLISHED?

[@denvan3143]

@@jaykanta4326 you saw it here, correct?

[@jewiesnew3786]

@@denvan3143 this is not peer review, if ID is robust it should withstand the test of peer review.

[@sergiomoreno8775]

There are plenty of peer reviewed investigations talking about what Tour mentions but their ignored by mainstream.

[@georgeofthehut9398]

Amazing, thank you ☦️

[@JamesKing2understandinglife]

All science indicates that all life on Earth comes from existing similar life. The ordinary common miracle of "life" only comes from already existing life. First life forms of every specie and type is a miracle.

[@shaoorehsan9114]

Simply amazing and mind boggling to comprehend the info and knowledge inside the cell, which human continue to discover. Thanks for explaining in simple possible manner Dr. JT, and thanks to Dr. SM, since he also has traits to listen and explain in a way, to hit the hammer on nail head perfectly.

[@andrewwalker1377]

Love it. Supports an intelligent design possibility without jumping to conclusions Time for many a re-think.

[@SmallWetIsland]

The re-think for most of the ID proponents might be how accept that a lack of a full understanding of science, systems and processes is not evidence for supernatural entities.

[@goodman4093]

Yes. There is an intelligent force unlike dumb force (potential , mechanical, kinetic) that is driving molecules to form organism. This intelligent force is not God but came forth from him. No amount of human science can find God. He is far to superior to our knowledge

[@goodman4093]

​​​​@@SmallWetIsland God is far too superior for your science to discover him. So don't bother about it. Now to your argument. Rethink all your care, there is an intelligent force driving these process. You are just a lay man. The man speaking in this youtube is professor. Why should I believe a layman

[@barn_a]

ID is not scientific. It is simply the opposition to evolution. For ID to be a valid hypothesis, you first have to demonstrate that a God exists, and then prove that he was the one who created life as it is today. If you look up "intelligent design" the first thing that comes up calls it pseudosciece.

[@sungcha3563]

What a phenomenal content of information by the speakers. Love it!!! Love Dr. James Tour.

[@juliuswambete9504]

We don't know until we know!

[@volodyanarchist]

But they don't know these things, so they don't know anything... you know "Clueless".

[@MinisterHolness]

Dr Tour is preaching facts...

[@Mani-Mohammadi]

Please show the articles for proving

[@IronPoorBlood]

Proving? God? If you went outside and saw a man with a box of wooden matches, lighting them one after another, and you asked him what he was doing and he replied " I'm trying to see the sun"... you would realize he couldn't, he's blind. How then does anyone "see?" If you mean prove which faith , that's more complex. See Josh McDowel " Evidence that demands a verdict" Christianity hangs on the resurrection being historical fact. That's the battleground. Regardless of what people believe, the division of the general population takes place. You're either in camp "A" or you are outside. Getting rid of christianity does not get rid of the issue of exclusivity. I am a Christian, by the will of god, I can't explain anything about that. I just know it is. And, I don't like others being "out." " For god so love the world, his son gave his blood..." "The life is in the blood" Leviticus 17:14

[@bobdalton2062]

Excellent presentations! No one knows the Recipe for OOL. Not the process, not the proper mixture amounts. As Dr Tour points out, we are a long long way away from having an answer to the process!

[@tonymaurice4157]

When they get the just right conditions with all the pure chemicals and manipulated controlled processes. All that would prove is it takes intelligence to produce life.

[@canadiankewldude]

@@tonymaurice4157 *_God Bless_*

[@JamesKing2understandinglife]

Life will not occur just because the ingredients of a living organisim are created. The spark of life only comes from existing life. OOL will be an unsolvable problem!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@tonymaurice4157 it won't, you can't prove god, you'll never show anything you want to show. you don't seem to understand your own religion.

[@unc1589]

⁠@@HarryNicNicholas Ahh. The old “prove God” deflection. Amazing how many consider that a legitimate justification. Even in the face of not proving evolution, bang, and that there is no God. It’s a scientific stalemate at best. We know this yet we make no attempt to move on to the next criterion. Unfortunately, denying God makes us appear to be fools and not the other way around. A true scientist would at least create a “let’s pretend there is God” scenario and follow it out to its logical conclusion. The reason that doesn’t happen has nothing to do with God or “science”. It’s a human behavior thing. Rooted in the insecurity of man.

[@MarcelinhoTheRock]

Obrigado Dr. James

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

NICE

[@joanhyde1745]

As a Ph.D biochemist, I have never seen the evidence that living cells can be generated by chemistry in the environment. Cells are too complicated to come into being “naturally”. The comments by Dr. Tour are so very important.

[@tims5268]

Modern cells sure, but the very first primitive cells would have been very different. If you are a Ph.D biochemist you would surely know that already?

[@AlKidd]

​@@tims5268 Dr. Tour specifically addresses that kind of objection you raised. There is no cell known to science such that we can reasonably imagine that in its abiogenesis it stochastically achieved in one-fell swoop the appearance of its cell membrane, its homeostasis, its code for mitosis, and its protein-protein interactome. A list of those achievements is a partial list of the requirements for a cell's appearance in a hostile early-earth environment, all of which must be in place and working 'hand in glove' in the twinkling of an eye before degradation of the cellular components--not to mention an environment needed to protect the cell after it had come into existence.

[@crabb9966]

​@@tims5268why are people like you always so overtly conceited and rude

[@Gryffster]

Just rehashing the same old irreducible complexity arguments. If you think modern cells simply cannot possibly have simpler precursors, then you must demonstrate why. I guarantee no-one ever has. All I hear is argument from incredulity.

[@unc1589]

⁠@@tims5268 Ok so let’s make it simple. Has a “single cell “ ever been created in a lab?

[@kathleenwharton2139]

Your body is just molecules and they cannot care..but you have Spirit within you and it Cares very much! 😊❤

[@michaelogrady232]

Yup. It is the soul that gives form and life to the body.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@michaelogrady232 how do souls work? what is a soul?no one seems to know.

[@titomontes9670]

God is Almighty. We are not.

[@rubiks6]

God has all wisdom. We do not.

[@theresa42213]

SO much do delight in on your channel Dr.James! All that you say shows that we are _FEARFULLY_ and _WONDERFULLY_ made! JESUS has the keys to death, and Hades, and l believe He has the keys to LIFE also! Blessings to you. :D

[@TylerR909]

I have been absolutely captured by this topic in the last week. Definitely aiming for the top of the Dunning-Kruger curve right now.

[@tonymaurice4157]

Even with all the clever manipulations and designed equipment they don't get very far.

[@denvan3143]

Evolutionists are definitely at the top of the Department Researching Origin Of Life or DROOL.

[@deandownsouth]

It's not obvious to me who is suffering from Dunning-Kruger in this. DK syndrome is an overestimation of knowledge or ability, right?

[@JT-np1op]

@@deandownsouth too cryptic, speak plainly.

[@MrArtist7777]

ALL living organisms have a spirit to animate and give life, given by the creator. Great presentation by Dr. Tour, explaining the absolute dead-end pursuit of life from inanimate objects. No question, life adapts and evolves to survive and thrive in its respective environment, but life did not begin from means of abiogenesis. Science and faith should work hand-in-hand, never opposing each other.

[@stevepierce6467]

Science will always state clearly what it knows to be true and what it guesses could be true. Your statement that " all living organisms have a spirit to animate and give life, given by the creator" declares as true something you do not know to be true. You believe that things were done by a creator, an assertion for which you cannot provide any supporting evidence. Believe what you want, but do not pretend that it is proven fact.

[@canadiankewldude]

*_God Bless_*

[@zacksmith4509]

​@@stevepierce6467So you burden someone else with your ignorance about God? I wonder If God could exist and you're just ignorant...

[@niculaelaurentiu1201]

@@stevepierce6467 thank you

[@michaelszczys8316]

The way I see it, after millions of situations of the precise molecules and chemicals being together by pure chance and lightning strikes nearby, by sheer chance and electrifies the chemicals and molecules and sparks ' life ' in the chemical and molecules combination. Then fifteen minutes later the ' life ' dies and its all over.

[@shihantemplet]

Great presentation!

[@tonymaurice4157]

Abiogenesis failure! Even under all their manipulated controlled lab environments and designed equipment they come nowhere close!

[@elisabethe2166]

22.58 Precious! Certainly a resurrection would be simpler!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

neither has tour and he never will. and you should know that, you're another one doesn't know your own religion.

[@Melkor3001]

Question: why should a de novo synthesis be easier than a recent cell death resurrection? Question: Why is it so hard to resurrect a cell that has just died?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

decay. the decay is irreversible once anything has died. you can extend life till it's indefinite, but once you're dead you're dead. likewise you can;t be immortal, then decide to be mortal, die, come back, then decide to be immortal again, it's a stupid story.

[@deandownsouth]

That be one of the Big Questions. Is there something akin to a "force" of life that animates cells? Or something else? It seems that we can only go so far in reviving someone, why? Religions talk of the Spirit. An absolutely material take would say there is none or if there is, it's created via the 'evolutionary process' and ceases to exist at death. We may never know.

[@howieduin915]

​@@deandownsouthWe will each know eventually.

[@steadfastneasy26]

So grateful for a bold voice of truth in science.

[@raulhernannavarro1903]

ID is not science.

[@JappaKneads]

​@@raulhernannavarro1903Neither is abiogenesis...

[@samdg1234]

@@raulhernannavarro1903 Is it science to say "nobody(s) has" as in "nobody's solved this" Search the transcript. Such claims are made by Tour over 20 times. And that is the extent of Tour's position. His critique is the inconsistency of opposing claims made by the same people but to different audiences. Such as Steve Benner in 2021 to the layperson Dave Farina, a KZbinr in 2021 he said, "I suppose most of the many of the big paradoxes and origin of Life have been solved." And to an audience of professional in the field he said, “Chemistry is actually hard to get to work. The molecules precipitate. The molecules hydrolyzed. The molecules decompose. And so it's very much a constraint you have to deal with … It's one goddamn problem after another.” So, the scientific hypothesis is that nobody has done what Tour is saying no one has done. Falsify it.

[@brandonarrington5976]

@@raulhernannavarro1903then what is science? Could you enlighten us?

[@jaimeapablaza8041]

Scientists look for answers to increase our knowledge. They don't pretend know, we know how little we know, that's why we keep learning. The more we know, the more humble and respectful we should be.

[@trappedinexistence]

"it just doesn't work" James Tour = Todd Howard but honest 😂

[@terrencecoccoli524]

This is the guy who has been getting destroyed by that KZbinr?

[@volodyanarchist]

CLUELESS!

[@projectcontractors]

"All life comes from a single moment of creation. Some 3.8 billion years ago in some bubbling mud pot or deep ocean thermal vent. Some little bag of chemicals twitched and became animate and than miraculously reproduced itself. Everything that lives now on earth, or ever has lived, descends from that moment. We are all built from a single original blueprint. I don't believe there is a more important or remarkable fact in the natural world, indeed in any world, then that one." ~Bill Bryson

[@galileog8945]

First of all, Bryson does not know shit. Second, it is really hard to understand what he meant.

[@joeschmoe1794]

Hilarious story!

[@rubiks6]

Absolutely false. The single moment biological life began to exist was when God began to speak the words, "Let the Earth bring forth ..." on the third, fifth, and sixth days of creation.

[@MrArtist7777]

Obviously, that's a complete fictitious lie. Bryson knows he's lying because what he's saying cannot be proven.

[@johnglad5]

You mentioned blueprints. Blueprints only come from intelligent minds. The Code of Life screams design. 50 years of study and we barely understand that code.

[@rodneynorfolk9737]

go jimmy!!!

[@danielsiebert5714]

Evolution explains how complexity necessarily derives from simple precursors.

[@YuvanWinanda]

Love this! Brilliant scientists

[@thunderous-one]

Checkmate darwinoatheists!

[@constructivecritique5191]

Thank you, Jesus, for sending your servant James Tour!

[@godzillagodzilla4405]

I have a feeling, that if one were able to create a controlled stasis of atomic and molecular particles, and meticulously build a cell particle by particle until it was an exact duplicate of an existing cell, it would just fall apart when switching off the stasis. Seems like there is a guiding force that is attributed to living matter, and that life is more than the sum of its parts.

[@deepsareen1]

The paper titled Urea-mediated warm ponds: Prebiotic formation of carbamoyl amino acids on the primordial Earth explains posssible abiogenesis origins of cell

[@ikemiracle4841]

I've learned allot today, Thanks Dr Tour.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

Hallelujah! This video is a shining gem in the current dark times! An absolute must see for anyone who is open to both science and intelligent design of life. James is just on an absolute tear, handing down one brilliantly presented argument after the other, and it is obvious he speaks from the heart. Stephen in an equally intelligent way finishes things off right at the end of this video; ‘..The very fact it takes incredible intelligence of researchers to mimic the origin of life form cosmic soup precisely strengthens the case for intelligent design..’ Brilliant! But let’s not be too harsh on the materialistic biogenesis camp. Scientific progress is often propelled by having two opposing camps. And even if their message of ‘almost there’ is not truthful, it appears necessary to get funding from which the entire field profits. Now , besides all the praise, I do have a pressing suggestion how to bolster the quest for intelligent design. We may want to focus less on biochemistry and more on the geometry of specifically microtubules which permeate and connect every cell in our body. Why microtubules? Because their geometry structure enables quantum physical processes which may offer clearer answers as to the non-local (!) vehicle of coding for life and consciousness. Roger Penrose and Stuart Hamerhoff produced ground breaking research (Orch OR) linking the structure of said microtubiles to the emergence of consciousness, a related topic! The essence is in the nature of quantum physics (QP). What’s so special about QP? Well, in QP the ‘grid’ in which processes take place is not defined by space, but by energy. Moreover, the QP clock is defined by mass, not time. Most prominent this is displayed at quantum leaps in atoms, where electrons jump between eV distanced energy orbitals, which cost mass (not time!). Since the structure of microtubules is a fixed geometry of 3D grid static charges (e.g.H bridges), it can be argued that in the QP sense (where energy is the grid) these microtubules ARE connected to any other microtubules with identical 3D energetic geometry REGARDLESS (current) position in space and time. That is literally what ‘entanglement’ in QP means. So we might be looking at self-organising entanglement via microtubules where no organism is truly separated from like organisms as spatial distance is not the only way define distance. This would also explain the immense complex behaviour / consciousness of e.g. single celled organism like Lacrymaria.

[@xf_jaguar1162]

"In the realm of Particle Physics and Particle Chemistry, a captivating debate surrounds the fundamental constituents of matter, specifically focusing on the intricate building blocks of quarks, electrons, and gluons Can we unravel the profound essence of these particles and their interactions, which ultimately sculpt the very fabric of our universe? Delving into the heart of this discourse lies a fundamental question: What are the elemental particles that constitute quarks, electrons, and gluons, and how do their dynamic interplays delineate the fundamental architecture of matter? As we probe deeper into the subatomic realm, we unravel the mysterious dance of quarks, the elementary particles that make up protons and neutrons. Are they truly indivisible, or do they harbour deeper complexities awaiting discovery? Likewise, electrons, the enigmatic carriers of electric charge, stand as solitary entities, yet their behaviour perplexes even the most astute physicists. How do these particles, seemingly devoid of internal structure, exert such profound influence over the properties of matter? And then, there are gluons, the mediators of the strong force binding quarks together within the confines of atomic nuclei. How do these elusive particles govern the stability and structure of the very matter from which life itself emerges? In the grand tapestry of existence, proteins and sugars, the very building blocks of life, find their genesis in the intricate arrangements of these fundamental particles. Can we decipher the profound implications of these subatomic constituents on the macroscopic world, shedding light on the origins of life itself? Thus, the discourse unfolds, as we delve into the depths of particle physics, seeking to unravel the mysteries of existence through the lens of quarks, electrons, and gluons, and their profound implications for the nature of reality and the origins of life."

[@mkii6396]

The accumulation of quantitative changes in the chemical composition of matter eventually leads to a qualitative change in the properties of matter, resulting in the emergence of life. Therefore, even if individual molecules do not reproduce life, they can be arranged in a certain way to form a supramolecular structure that will.

[@dlwilson5766]

'accumulation of quantitative changes' hmm, problem is, any changes at a chemical level have to be accidental in the materialist framework. The molecules cannot choose the best path for survival once, out of the countless possible paths. (nevermind doing it over and over again) Your statement is basically invoking magic, and bears no relation to what happens in the real world. 'they can be arranged'... by what? There is no arranging in operation. Arrangement needs foresight and insight. Chemistry cannot see or think.

[@galileog8945]

@@dlwilson5766 Maybe google "emergent properties" and/or "self-assembly" and verify that your understanding of chemistry could be much improved.

[@drummerhq2263]

No and that is an Ai answer. And still no, as the renowned scientist just showed, can not be done. Also, has not been done. If only the evolutionary religion scientists would be honest

[@arthurmore427]

The cell's Interactome talked about here has a complexity appraised at 79 billion orders of magnitude Just how was this number determined? PLEASE have a talk on it. That number is over 877 million times the number of atoms in our universe. Drawn out at 5 zeros an inch, it would extend past the Moon.

[@johnglad5]

A very big number. Lol. Grace

[@redpillcoach1855]

The number is high because it is so darn organized. The interactome is the entire cellular processes of Carbon atoms on the molecular level to support life. Each atom has trillions of different places and combinations it can be. That means you are multiplying each atom by trillions and there are lots of atoms. And that's just the 1 to 1 interactions. You get this huge number because the actual interactions are 1 to thousands. When you multiply the number of atoms X the number of states raised to a power of say 10 steps or 100 steps you get a really, really big number of possible interactions in the interactome of even the simplest cell.

[@stephenking4170]

Molecules in a pond and Poof ! lighning strikes and life chemicals are formed and Kazam ! a complete cell is formed with reproductive capacity. It's the best fairy story in town.

[@cshaw9683]

No one says that. There’s plenty of good videos on KZbin that can educate you if you’re truly interested.

[@denvan3143]

@@cshaw9683 and in spite of the existence of those KZbin videos, you offer no explanation. Would you think it fair if you ask me about God, and I simply replied “Read the Bible”? And, based on my suggestion, would you do it? That’s rather asking you to do my homework to convince you. That’s what you’re doing by telling us to watch these unspecified KZbin videos it’s support your position.

[@SmallWetIsland]

It is a fairy story.... not as good as the one about the talking snake the magic fruit and the rib woman though.

[@redpillcoach1855]

@@SmallWetIslandThat is a good story. It almost has some kind of like message or something embedded in it.

[@denvan3143]

@@SmallWetIsland😆 what is a fairy tale, that the universe appeared suddenly come up for new cars? Yes it is. It’s a Laws a physics or just exactly so life is possible without causing for no reason? Yes, that is a fairytale. That the biological instructions in DNA, the coding, all living things “just happened“ without causing for no reason? Another fairytale. Evolution? Lacking in evidence, another fairytale.

[@booksbrains1249]

Can i use some parts of the vedio ?

[@Homo_sAPEien]

Not all life even cares about life. Plants aren’t conscious so they don’t care about anything but, they still reproduce. Same with bacteria. But, because they reproduce and mutate and because of selective pressures in the environment, populations of plants and even bacteria evolve. And the same concept can be applied to molecules that reproduce. I’ve seen people argue that natural selection can not be applied to populations of nonliving molecules because they are not alive so they therefore could not compete for survival. But, the reality is that ultimately even living things are not strictly competing for survival, rather they are ultimately competing to pass on their genes. Think about it, why would female praying mantises have the instinct to eat the male when they have a baby? That isn’t beneficial to the males survival. But, it gives the female nutrition for their offspring, thus allowing for them to pass on their genes. How long the individual survived will not necessarily make any difference to the population many generations into the future, all that will make a difference is which organisms successfully passed on their genes. So, competition to pass on the genes is ultimately what natural selection all comes down to. And, like living things, some nonliving molecules can copy themselves.

[@johnglad5]

There are no molecules that reproduce themselves without using organic compounds. Even using organic compounds the replicants are partial and or mutated.

[@PeaceTrainUSA-1000]

Fitness is what determines the winners of random mutation once life gets going. That mechanism is not in place before life starts. All you have is randomness, but undirected random processes don't produce complexity, especially of the type needed to create even the simplest cell.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@Homo_sAPEien "Plants aren’t conscious so they don’t care about anything but, they still reproduce. Same with bacteria. But, because they reproduce and mutate and because of selective pressures in the environment, populations of plants and even bacteria evolve. And the same concept can be applied to molecules that reproduce" You're missing The Point, The Question. HOW did this happen? HOW did bacteria come into existence so they could reproduce mutate and evolve?

[@galileog8945]

@@PeaceTrainUSA-1000 Yes, random processes CAN create complexity. The mechanism in place is spontaneous gain of function with self-replication. The concept has been confirmed experimentally.

[@spamm0145]

Yes, lets ignore our every day observations that complexity necessities intelligent input in favour of a never observed mechanism that brings forth information so complex in its structure that it cannot be arranged utilising DNA's coding method using super computers. Lets use our imaginations and pretend that matter without a mind and therefore incapable of understanding mathematics, supposedly over the course of time, using unguided, random mutational processes without intent constructs a complex brain that is capable of understanding the abstract concept of numbers, utterly preposterous! Every aspect of OoL requires a supreme intelligent designer that is way beyond the capabilities of mankind and solves all impossible chicken and egg problems like which came first DNA or proteins.

[@tonybmusic1166]

A problem with OOL is that if they admit that they’re getting nowhere fast they lose funding……so they publish papers with their “just so” explanations of abiogenesis of cells.

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

Interesting secular beliefs: Universe = Eternal God = cannot be eternal DNA = Creates itself God = Cannot be uncreated Humans built a boat = impossible monkeys surfed to America = fact

[@Homo_sAPEien]

Idk of anyone who says God could not be eternal, if a god existed. But, we would just say that an eternal god is not necessarily to explain anything because the universe could be eternal. And while DNA evidently creates more DNA, the first DNA was not created by DNA, nobody is saying otherwise. It likely evolved from a simpler self replicating molecule, perhaps self replicating RNA. The problem with a god always existing is that you use this god as an explanation for things in nature, saying he intelligently designed these things, similar to how humans design things. Yet, humans have to be set up really complex in order to design things, so something could not by chance happen to have always existed in this super complex perfect way. And, if you say God doesn’t need to be complex in order to design things, then you are talking about a separate concept from how humans design things, so you cannot use human ability to design things as your proof that a god could do the same. Therefore, the intelligent design model relies completely on mystery so it doesn’t explain anything. And nobody says it’s impossible for humans to build a boat, we obviously build boats all the time, but people say that the Noah’s ark story is impossible for a wide variety of reasons, none having to do with humans being unable to build a boat.

[@Roescoe]

@@Homo_sAPEien "Idk of anyone who says God could not be eternal" The argument goes "who created God?" This is to assume God cannot be eternal.

[@denvan3143]

Your basic premise is flawed. The universe is not eternal, it is temporal; there is yesterday, today and tomorrow. In an eternal universe there is only now. Chyme is necessary for events to take place; in and eternal universe everything that can happen will have happened. That the universe is temporal is evident; we can gauge the age of the universe. This wouldn’t be true of an eternal universe; if you divide eternity into what is left is still eternity. Take 1/10 of one percent of eternity, and it is still eternity. The big bang is the description of the emergence of energy, Matter, space and time. God created all four, exists outside of time, and is timeless, eternal. Matter could not have created itself, therefore, it was made by God; the same for energy and space. God created space in which matter could exist, energy to act upon matter, and time for energy to act upon matter. He created all four at once, all four hour depending on one another: space, Matter, energy and time. Secular scientists have no explanation for creation apart from the creator; Albert Einstein tried and failed, so did Stephen Hawkings and Lawrence Krauss has done no better.

[@redpillcoach1855]

Recently had a nonbeliever whine how can God hear all the prayers at the same time. That makes no sense. I explained that Chat GPT is a singular AI with a physical address and it talks to hundreds of thousands and millions of people at the same time with no problem whatsoever.

[@zachreyhelmberger894]

WoW!! Great stuff! How can six sugars be combined in more than 10^12 ways?!

[@redpillcoach1855]

Each sugar has dozens of stereoisomers.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

so what tour is saying is that god chose a method to achieve life that was more likely to FAIL. it's a stupid claim, life under god should be 1:1 - a certainty, saying life is so unlikely supports chance and naturalism. god should be able to make life out of bubble gum if he wants.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@redpillcoach1855 so god picked a method to produce life that was MORE LIKELY TO FAIL? is that what you're saying?

[@LightningJackFlash]

293rd viewer ;) Love THAT!!!

[@blessedmanmeditations]

Let's assume that scientists one day are able to solve the things Tour says have not been solved. Doesn't that just prove that it takes an incredible amount of intelligence to solve these issues? Don't theists agree with that? Theists have the solution.

[@niculaelaurentiu1201]

Theists says everything appeared but doesn't say how it appeared, it's not very useful or good science to just say "whatever"

[@raulhernannavarro1903]

Scientists put chemicals to compete with each other and that is how they evolve. Without human intervention involved. So saying it was an intelligence doesn't make sense, competition and natural selection does the trick

[@KenJackson_US]

@@niculaelaurentiu1201 Once you introduce an intelligent agent, the process becomes irrelevant. For example, can anyone examine a car and discern the details of how it was manufactured? Just the fact that it was manufactured is the answer.

[@denvan3143]

And yet on some very basic points secular scientist essentially say “whatever”. Edwin Hubble’s disclosure of the red shift shows the universe had a beginning; secular scientist cannot explain creation apart from a creator. In lieu of an intelligent creator there explanation is “it just happened.” That is a disassociation of cause-and-effect, I believe in magic. Secular sciences cannot explain fine-tuning of the universe apart from a Supreme Being. And rejecting that they say “it just happened“: magic. Second or biologist will not even addressed the question: “what is the source of biological instructions in DNA?” Their answer? “It just happened.” Magic. I don’t believe in Magic, I acknowledge the universe, the laws of physics and biology are the results of an intelligent creator. That is not “whatever”.​@@niculaelaurentiu1201

[@MS-od7je]

The math of the universe morphology is a description of God.

[@Ejacunathan]

Molecules containing the frequency of life beg to differ.

[@rclrd1]

These "chance versus intelligent design" debates skate over the surface of deeper questions about the nature of physical reality. Granted that life is a matter of the increasing complexity of coded information taking place through molecular interactions: On one side the claim is that chance and probability alone can account abiogenesis; the other side insists that "intelligent design" is involved. But what of the fundamental physical laws governing molecular interactions? Why are those laws structured in such a way that this increasing complexity is _possible_ (and seemingly inevitable)? What about the apparent "intelligent design" in the structure of physical laws?

[@kimanimzalendo367]

Exactly! Design is obvious everywhere. The whole thing is like copyright and patent robbery. We (humanity in general today) admire the products/handiwork, but are loath to credit the producer/creator. Previous generations of scientists (physicists, botanists, etc) were "wherever the evidence leads" but today's "so long as the evidence & subsequent inferences do not correspond (hell, never, no) with what the bible says". We are dealing with a rival faith and worldview that is quite dogmatic. It is because once God is acknowledges, the duty to obey Him will follow. Once the evidence is overwhelming, the infinite universes doctrine provides an escape route

[@DJTheTrainmanWalker]

Answering the title cold: why would anyone imagine molecules care about anything... Let alone life?

[@RyanDyalRealEstate]

Interesting that there are not many non-believers watching this one and commenting. Crickets on the good stuff.

[@MarcelinhoTheRock]

I have a great respect for Dr. James Tour, a great Christian

[@Lambdamale.]

Show us molecules tending toward life at random, and the debate is over.

[@volodyanarchist]

You do know that molecules are not doing "random" stuff, the follow very specific chemical paths. So the debate is over before it began. Life is a stable equilibrium, but inorganic chemistry only can be a stable equilibrium. And since we know that life increases entropy at a faster rater than inorganic chemistry, the chemical reactions do tend towards life.

[@jimg6153]

Awesome information! The folks that keep adhering to the idea of chance as the explanation for our existence reminds me of the movie dumb and dumber and this scene Mary Swanson : I'd say more like one out of a million. Lloyd Christmas : [long pause while he processes what he's heard] So you're telling me there's a chance.

[@danielhudon9456]

Why don’t people understand that ID is just the Argument from Incredulity, and just as easily dismissed as such?

[@user-pw9vn4rp5t]

I wanna be here

[@migueldocavaco2825]

Unfortunately, I cannot understand much :). But I am an agnostic anyway!

[@chrismessier7094]

that's not because of ignorance. Faith involves the will, volition.

[@tonymaurice4157]

Even with the clever manipulations and designed equipment they don't get very far.

[@BROWNDIRTWARRIOR]

Life doesn't care about them either, so there.

[@George-ey4lx]

What would Professor Dave would say about this?

[@omnivore2220]

I think a primary source of confusion in all of this is that it is assumed that the molecules themselves constitute life, that the molecules make life, and are the life. It's never stated openly, but it is clear that the assumption is there. Perhaps the better way to look at this is that the life makes the molecules, that life came first, and then the molecules. And if you want Biblical support for that, consider Genesis, where Adam is formed out of the dust of the ground, and is NOT said to be alive at that point. Adam is formed, but not alive. Let that sink in. And then God breathed the breath of life into him, and Adam became a living soul. If we consider the order of operations there, which is to say, if we use Bible heuristics, it suggests that you will never get life by playing with molecules alone. If you can't breathe the breath of life into the molecules, like God did, then they're not life, but at best they're merely a dead scaffold, or an empty apartment, for life.

[@galileog8945]

This idea is eminently stupid and volates every scientific law we know of.

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

Yeah, the problem is that everything must be in place all at once to be considered life. And, the odds of that just happening is pretty remote.

[@rubiks6]

Very well said. Thank you for a new perspective on "Life only comes from Life." (I will be capitalizing the second word "Life" in that statement from now on.)

[@whelperw]

Its called emergent property. When combination posses traits, which individual parts don't. Like brick wall, one brick isn't wall, but specific arrangement of bricks is wall.

[@JamesBrown-fd1nv]

​@@galileog8945Science is a puny fragment of the bigger picture. Science is nothing until we develop theories into facts. To limit truth to science is rather foolish. There are many things that science can never address, and for most science is the crutch that people lean on to avoid God and their guilt of sin.

[@alexanderyakovlev6609]

Dried cell cannot divide? How about dry yeasts we use for cooking? .

[@anonymoose9322]

That dry yeast has to be rehydrated in order to work.

[@mrsmith4662]

Definitive.

[@Xanadu2025]

Tour did not write the books cited. Those were written by Stephen Meyer.

[@TheMoonRulesNo1]

And Stephen Meyer is not a scientist.

[@Assad966]

❤️❤️💯 . Allah is great. Allah's knowledge and power of creation and sustaining it, is limitless, unique and magnificent. It is only a single and beautiful example of it. The uniqueness of the design and function of an atom to the universe and Galaxies, prove that it has been created by a magnificient Creator, not as falsely depicted by biased scientists who deny the Creator through their false theories and lies.

[@jamesstewart4457]

Abiogenesis is modern day alchemy.

[@electricmanist]

One might well ask, why does anything exist at all ? Clearly, a supreme intelligent force we call 'God' is behind all that is. People can concoct all sorts of theories, from now and forever, but an intelligent creative force behind all that is, is undeniable.

[@lawless7859]

God of the gaps man!

[@Tanengtiong]

Atom is Ezekiel wheel that have salvational crosses in it.

[@junacebedo888]

Lightning strikes primordial soup and then life began...?!? Frankenstein?

[@Melkor3001]

Stereochemistry

[@collinsanyanvoh7988]

The greatest miseducation in human history is being thought in schools by accomplished academics. HOW IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE? Either they don't understand the nature of human curiosity, or their so called science, or they are just being blatantly evil. The simplest of questions has not been answered, yet they keep riding on. Well if there is no option, why can't it be kept just as it is?.....An ongoing enquiry, please take it out of academic books.

[@Assad966]

According to recent scientific understanding of origin of species , Darwin was utterly wrong, therefore his lies should not be allowed to be taught in schools to kids who don't have enough knowledge to differentiate lies from truth. All such theories be they in physics, chemistry and biology should be immediately banned. Only, the scientifically proven facts should be taught in schools, NO ILLOGICAL AND NO UNSCIENTIFIC THEORIES PLZ 🙏

[@dvoulio]

...and you think that religion gives you these answers ?

[@howieduin915]

​@@dvoulioNot necessarily. But the authors of the books could admit that they don't know, rather than tell our youth untruths.

[@amphimrca]

We are Consciousness🦋

[@howardking3601]

There is no such thing as a true Origin of Life science -- only speculation. And none of the theories makes any sense. God created life -- there is no other way that it could have conceivably come about. Mr. Tour knows this, he is a master of his field, and he's honest. But, in the main, this presentation is too technical for the non-chemist.

[@bobdalton2062]

It is just not that theories don't make any sense. More importantly they Violate the Known Laws of nature.

[@rubiks6]

He also does not acknowledge the God who authored Genesis 1. James Tour still believes in the Big Bang and evolution of species - just not abiogenesis.

[@JappaKneads]

​@@rubiks6Evolution does NOT address the origin of life...

[@denvan3143]

@@JappaKneads and evolutionist are adamant that they do not have to provide proof or evidence of the origin of life. Yet, they demand of the creationist that they prove the existence of God, the source of life in creation. It is an unscientific double standard.

[@rayagoldendropofsun397]

Flame's = Life, human life came from Star Flames, better known as Sunlight/Sunshine/Photons Life = Flame's

[@silence8806]

"Religion poisons everything." - Christopher Hitchens

[@FutureNihilist]

“In truth, there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don't know it.” - G.K. Chesterton

[@danielsiebert5714]

Why so hostile? Evolution provides explanations for the progressive evolution of life from simple compounds. Especially when powered by an energy source, such as thermal vents.

[@ankhenaten2]

The word abiogenesis is blasphemy and anyone adding or substracting to genesis will go directly to hell Dna was written, so was the atom designed, the entire universe was created by yhwh

[@scarfhs1]

Making claims without evidence to support them should be blasphemy.

[@lynnjohnson2371]

I strongly object to your theory that people having opinions about abiogenesis. As a strongly committed Christian I wonder if you might be taking God’s name in vain, unauthorized teaching which alienates weak people from God.

[@SaintFluffySnow]

🐰👍 🐼👍🐻👍

[@jasontipton8430]

My lord they believe there great grandpa is a rock

[@volodyanarchist]

Yes, the bible does teach that people were made from dust (ground down rock). But this is noncense! You are a homo sapiens, your grandfather was also a homosapiens.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

All of nature is determined so it doesn’t have a choice about life. Only humans have free will and humans should care about life. Humans are being inhuman if they do not care about life. Life is fundamentally consciousness at all levels from limited to fully sentient. Anything that is sentient we should care about. A human leg feels pain, a table leg does not.

[@docsavage30]

Hi James, Still pretending that prebiotic self replicators aren't possible? Best Wishes, DOC

[@raymondswenson1268]

Anyone who has written computer code for a living knows that randomness introduced into a code destroys its function. Claiming that randomness can create functional code is ludicrous. Only intelligent purpose can create functioning code. Every modern observation of random mutation of DNA code changing a living organism has been through the destruction of a prior function, not the creation of a new function.

[@robertmccully2792]

I am the dumbest person on earth, even I know that life is a creation. To deny that is nothing more than turning your back on facts and God.

[@user-zu2zo8ji4n]

The hell with what James Tour says! Despite all those challenges he points out, I insist that life started from non living matter. I'm joking....

[@doring4579]

🙂🌎⏳🙏♥️

[@volodyanarchist]

It is difficult to find somebody as ignorant, and yet deceptive. If somebody has a link to any lecture on the evolution of deception in humans, please share, that would be an interesting topic to dive into.

[@poundtrader1414]

GOD or no GOD, science is full of it

[@VirtuelleWeltenMitKhan]

One can talk about biology and chemistry as much as one wants. But can we please clarify that evolution is not limited to biology or chemistry? Evolution is a fundamental concept, and anyone who wants to can understand it with just a few dice, pieces of paper, and a pen.

[@ryanharrell3460]

People need to listen and understand the truth here. The religion of evolution has harmed science for almost 200 years now and has sent countless of people to Hell. So many today hope and wish that evolution is true, just so they don't have to face God on Judgement Day. People literally are hoping against evidence that there is nothing after death, instead of something. Even now they cannot explain why there is something, instead of nothing. The answer is because there is Someone.

[@rubiks6]

Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.

[@JappaKneads]

In all fairness, evolution doesn't address the origin of life. Neither does it posit that it knows the origin of life. *Abiogenesis* is the materialist "explanation" for the origin of life. Not evolution.

[@denvan3143]

@@JappaKneads the proponents for evolution point out that abiogenesis is not evolution, and is not a matter of discussion. And yet, if you say you believe in creation, they will demand proof of God, the Origen of life. It’s a double standard they are seemingly not aware of: they have no burden to prove for the source of life or evolution, but demand the source of life for creation.

[@SmallWetIsland]

Evolution is not in question neither Mayer or James Tour question evolution. They simply explain the unreasonable complexity of the first cells and the difficulty of attributing their structure to random events. The fact that this is true and that some OOL scientists hype their success and downplay the problems is not however a reason to invent a super intelligent being who can do magic and fits the preconceived indoctrination of Theists.

[@denvan3143]

@@SmallWetIsland with Edwin Hubble’s disclosure of the red shift so I could do scientist were left with no accounting of how creation could take place without a creator. They divorce themselves from cause-and-effect; how did universe come about? “It just happened”: the alternative to cause-and-effect is magic. Secular scientist have no explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe; the recoil in horror. What is the cause of fine-tuning? “It just happened”: magic. What is the source of biological instructions in DNA, the code in all living things? “It just happened”: magic. I don’t believe in magic, I believe in a mind, in a superior building, who has the intellect and power to create the universe, the laws of physics and the biological instructions in all living things. The issue is not if you have no better explanation it must be God, but rather what is your explanation for the universe, physics, and biology apart phone all powerful consciousness? Evidently, the answer is matter that created itself, physics that accidentally are exactly what is needed for life, and nothing that wrote the genetic code; that is the invention of a self inventing universe: magic.

[@sentientflower7891]

There is also an Intelligent Design Paradox: Supposing the following three propositions, A. God exist. B. God created the Universe. C. Abiogenesis is Impossible. It is reasonable to ask the following: 1. Could God not create a Universe in which Abiogenesis would be possible? 2. Did God choose to create the Universe in such a way that Abiogenesis would not be possible? 3. Could God create a Universe in which Abiogenesis was both possible and natural and likely? Until these questions are resolved we must withhold judgement upon any Intelligent Design argument.

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

Of course the answers to all of your questions is "yes", so no judgement has to be withheld. It is because we have discovered so much about chemistry that we know that including intelligent design as a possibility is valid.

[@Papa-dopoulos]

Interesting idea. I'll take a crack at it. 1. I absolutely believe he could. But if you're implying that God and abiogenesis coexist in this particular universe, you'd be hard-pressed to find a Biblical or other religious text corroborating that. No text to my knowledge says "God created the Earth and then let it do it's thing." He is said to have an active hand in creating man. But absolutely, in a different universe/scenario, I see no reason why God wouldn't have the power to do this if He so pleased. 2. Whether or not something is possible doesn't mean that it happened. Technically, abiogenesis is possible. It requires a phenomenally unlikely coalescing of circumstances, wayyyyyy more unlikely than the existence of a God, but it's still technically possible. I think most theists like myself are less concerned about what could be possible, and more concerned about what actually happened. God and abiogenesis are both possible. We're interested in which is more likely. 3. Pretty much the same answer from #1. Yes, yes, and yes. He created the universe. It logically follows that a being with that much power could handle making abiogenesis a natural process that is likely to occur. Again, we run into the problem of contradicting religious accounts, but yes.

[@rubiks6]

Your three hypotheses are contrary to the Word of God and are therefore false. _"Could God not create a Universe in which Abiogenesis would be possible?"_ That's not what He said He did.

[@johnglad5]

All three are answered in how God explained that he created. All life to reproduce after their kind.

[@stylembonkers1094]

"Until these questions are resolved we must withhold judgement upon any Intelligent Design argument." Why?

[@danielsiebert5714]

We don’t completely understand biology, therefore God.

[@mmcc3506]

LOOL?