Dr. Tour EXPOSES the False Science Behind Origin of Life Research https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36_v4hsB-Y

I made a comment recently in this video about Tour's problems with synthesis.

"Molecules that compose living systems almost always show homochirality"
Yes, it's true for modern life. What about primordial cells? Was that necessary?

"When building molecular systems, constant redesigns are needed which take the synthesis back to step 1. It is often impossible to remove a moiety once it has been added to a molecule.
If homochirality was not necessary, this argument is moot.

"The synthetic reactions do not know how to stop their current course of progression ..."
Maybe there's no need to, if a natural process produces continual synthetic reactions.
Unless there's a show stopper somewhere.

"A prebiotic system does not have the ability to easily purify the structures." Is it really needed?

"Reagent addition-order is essential."
Not always. His cake example is a bit far fetched.

"The parameters of temperature ... have to be carefully controlled in order to build complex molecular structures."
I suppose such "controled" environments may happen in nature where the parameters may be within range of favorable conditions. As an example, scientists have found a natural nuclear reactor.

"The characterization at each step is essential for the chemist ..."
In a lab, but not necessary for natural processes.

"The mass transfer problem will be the killer of all routes."
I suppose ocean currents and convection currents may provide some transport mecanisms.

"Nature keeps no laboratory notebook so it cannot go back for more material." Maybe not necessary if molecules are produced continually by some natural process.

While scientists can't explain how life appeared, it happened in some way. Even Tour would be fine with a naturalistic explanation.
"Are we close to discovering the Origin Of Life? James Tour vs Lee Cronin" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DHvNRK452c
At 1:16:00 Tour would accept a naturalistic explanation about the origin of life, it wouldn't upset his faith.
At 1:17:43 "I'm fine with naturalistic explanation"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 6:21:32 AM UTC-5, physnoct wrote:

Dr. Tour EXPOSES the False Science Behind Origin of Life Research https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36_v4hsB-Y

I made a comment recently in this video about Tour's problems with synthesis.

"Molecules that compose living systems almost always show homochirality" Yes, it's true for modern life. What about primordial cells? Was that necessary?

"When building molecular systems, constant redesigns are needed which take the synthesis back to step 1. It is often impossible to remove a moiety once it has been added to a molecule.
If homochirality was not necessary, this argument is moot.

"The synthetic reactions do not know how to stop their current course of progression ..."
Maybe there's no need to, if a natural process produces continual synthetic reactions.
Unless there's a show stopper somewhere.

"A prebiotic system does not have the ability to easily purify the structures."
Is it really needed?

"Reagent addition-order is essential."
Not always. His cake example is a bit far fetched.

"The parameters of temperature ... have to be carefully controlled in order to build complex molecular structures."
I suppose such "controled" environments may happen in nature where the parameters may be within range of favorable conditions. As an example, scientists have found a natural nuclear reactor.

"The characterization at each step is essential for the chemist ..."
In a lab, but not necessary for natural processes.

"The mass transfer problem will be the killer of all routes."
I suppose ocean currents and convection currents may provide some transport mecanisms.

"Nature keeps no laboratory notebook so it cannot go back for more material."
Maybe not necessary if molecules are produced continually by some natural process.

While scientists can't explain how life appeared, it happened in some way. Even Tour would be fine with a naturalistic explanation.
"Are we close to discovering the Origin Of Life? James Tour vs Lee Cronin" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DHvNRK452c
At 1:16:00 Tour would accept a naturalistic explanation about the origin of life, it wouldn't upset his faith.
At 1:17:43 "I'm fine with naturalistic explanation"

He shouts too much for me to take him seriously.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)