Evolution Doesn't Work - James Tour, Phd.

[didact]

Fish + 400 million years =/= Humans. Thoughts on this guy and what he's saying?

?t=2s

[Vincardog]

1. This guy is a CHEMIST. He is saying that he does not understand BIOLOGY. What does HIS

opinion on this life science matter?

[didact]

2. Biology isn't based on Chemistry?!

?

[Vincardog]

3. No Chemistry studies substances and reactions. Biology studies LIFE and living things.

There is some study of how chemicals affect living things; but they are separate sciences.

Chemistry:1 the branch of science that deals with the identification of the substances of which matter is composed; the investigation of their properties and the ways in which they interact, combine, and change; and the use of these processes to form new substances

biology |bīˈäləjē | noun
the study of living organisms, divided into many specialized fields that cover their morphology, physiology, anatomy, behavior, origin, and distribution.

[BadgerKid]

18. *Molecular* biology is chemistry

applied to living things. Poster Didact is correct from that point of view.

Just to comment ... that definition of biology typically works for primary and secondary education. By the time you get to college and certainly graduate studies, everything is a bit more specialized. "Biology" could mean anything from molecular biology to proteomics, genomics, etc.

[Vincardog]

22. Educated people do not fall for the false equivocations and logic leaps required to follow the

Creationist BS revealed in the clip.
Fact: evolution does not explain the origin of life.
Fact: the chemist in the clip does not understand evolution.
Assertion: Most educated people secretly admit they don't understand evolution either.
Logic leap: Educated people secretly believe in creationism.


pseudo-intellectual BS

[AlecBGreen]

30. well put!

[Posteritatis]

12. Lots of things are based on chemistry; that doesn't mean anything.

Metallurgy's based on chemistry, but I wouldn't expect a typical chemist to be an expert on metalworking - or even have anything worth paying much attention to on the subject, depending on their specialties.

"Chemistry PhD" doesn't mean someone's omniproficient in anything involving the subject, and hasn't meant that for hundreds of years, any more than my having an advanced degree in history qualifies me as an authority on the entire past.

[Scootaloo]

26. I'll let xkcd explain it....

[GaYellowDawg]

31. It is certainly not an equivalent.

Chemistry is a reductionist science. Once you understand the properties of the smallest component of a substance, you understand how it interacts in any amount. In other words, a pound of gold will have exactly the same chemical properties as an atom of gold.

Biology is much more complex. There are levels of interaction in biology.

- There are interactions between molecules and atoms (ions are particularly important, for instance, in transmission of nerve impulses).

- There are interactions between cellular structures made up of molecules/atoms. For instance, both the cell membrane and endomembranous organelles are composed of phospholipids and a wide variety of proteins; the combination of proteins and lipids act differently than the proteins or lipids would on their own. Genes are, at their simplest description, sequences of DNA that are translated into proteins. Their expression, is, however, governed by both proteins, and by other portions of DNA.

- There are interactions between different types of cells. Some work on their own. Some form tissues. Some tissues act together to form organs.

- There are interactions between organs. For instance, if you eat a high-fat meal, and it's detected in the small intestine, signals will go to the gall bladder to contract and send bile salts into the small intestine in order to emulsify the fats. Some organs act together to form organ systems.

- There are interactions between organ systems. They all work together to form organisms.

- There are interactions between organisms of the same population, and organisms from different populations, from the same species.

- There are interactions between organisms of different species and their environment.

Evolution is incredibly complex, resulting from interactions amongst all these levels. As an example:

The puffer fish (fugu) is a delicacy in Japan - it's the one you've heard of that kills people if prepared incorrectly. How does it kill? The fish actually accumulates a toxin called tetrodotoxin, originally produced by bacteria, in its tissues. Tetrodotoxin is incredibly toxic, causing massive dysfunction of the nervous system in extremely small doses. It works by binding to and covering sodium channels. These sodium channels, when functioning normally, allow sodium into neurons in response to voltage changes on the neuron. As sodium, a positively charged ion, travels into the neuron, it affects the charge in adjacent areas of the neuron. If you block these channels, you block nerve impulse transmission. Not a good thing for any organism.

The fugu has a mutation in its sodium channels that disallows tetrodotoxin binding, yet allows sodium passage in response to voltage changes. This has two effects on the fish: first, it can take advantage of food sources that it previously could not, because it can ingest substances that have tetrodotoxin. Second, it can accumulate the toxin it its tissues, adding another level of defense.

Now, if you know the properties of sodium, or if you know the properties of the elements that make up the protein, or the properties of the protein that acts as a voltage-gated channel, you don't have the entire picture. A protein allows passage of sodium in response to a charge of -55mV. Interesting. But that tells you nothing about the protein's function within the organism, or how changes in it could affect the organism's survival. You have to be able to understand multiple levels of interaction to really understand the biology, or potential evolutionary implications.

Someone who says, "I'm a chemist; therefore, I understand evolution" is like someone who says, "I know how a wrench works; therefore, I understand how to build a car." No, they don't. A Ph.D. in chemistry confers no more expertise on evolution than a Ph.D. in Byzantine history. The chemist in question is speaking outside of his expertise, and frankly, out of his ass.

[bowens43]

4. I agree with him,he doesnt understand evolution

[Warren Stupidity]

5. "Veritas Forum" == absurd rightwing christian bullshit.

To correctly troll this board you should have chosen a clip without such a prominent clue.

[didact]

19. Really? Haven't heard of them...

not trolling, not saying I agree w/the guy - really he doesn't give much specifics, just that he doesn't understand evolution.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. so you just post utter bullshit and don't know how to use google?

seriously?

[JDPriestly]

27. An interesting book on the subject is "Your Inner Fish."

It explains a lot of the paleontological evidence of the similarity between parts of the human body and ancient, very ancient fish.

If I could understand it, you could to.

It's easy to read and fascinating.

[exboyfil]

6. Look how much a wolf has changed in a mere 40,000 years

to a Chihuahua or Great Dane. 400,000,000 is 10,000 times as long. We have an incredible number of transitional fossils and they are discovered just where we would expect them in the rocks. When you look at the development and growth of a mammal you see the code repeating the evolutionary history of the mammal. The DNA matches what you would expect. By observing some species you can make prediction about other species (such as moth with a extremely long tongue to take advantage of a flower with a long barrel for its nectar). When evolution stumbles on a better mousetrap the favorable mutation radiates outward (observed numerous times in the fossil record). Transitional fossils of legless amphibians and reptiles (snakes) with legs. Whales with underdeveloped legs. The evolution of the horse's hoof.

[TlalocW]

7. Typical creationist tactics

You go and get an expert in a scientific field other than biology whose field doesn't require understanding evolution (and who hopefully also shares your creationist beliefs) and present him as an expert in... SCIENCE!!!

And the thing is that there are jokers in every field who think that their expertise in that field make them experts in others that overlap - sometimes barely. Linus Pauling is a good example. Nobel prize winning chemist who was so brilliant that it was obvious that his opinions on human medicine - in regards to massive amounts of vitamin C staving off and curing the common cold - should be treated as sacred, even though he was out of his area. We're all vulnerable to having a big ego.

TlalocW

[Jim__]

8. Of course, he's actually talking about the origin of life.

The scientific Theory of Evolution does not address that. Almost everyone believes that life began through some sort of chemical evolution, but there is not an accepted theory of how this happened. By conflating the Theory of Evolution with the looser term evolution, he's misstating his case.

My guess is that if he asked these scientists that admit they don't know how life began if they accept the current Theory of Evolution, the vast majority would - unless he's talking to a very select subset of scientists.

[DreamGypsy]

11. Exactly. Abiogenesis - There is no "standard model" of the origin of life.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis - Abiogenesis:

Abiogenesis (/ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoiesis is the natural process by which life arises from inorganic matter. The earliest known life on Earth existed between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, during the Eoarchean Era when sufficient crust had solidified following the molten Hadean Eon.

Scientific hypotheses about the origins of life may be divided into several categories. Most approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. For example, the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can be racemically synthesized in conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth. Several mechanisms have been investigated, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.

<snip>

There is no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Under that umbrella, however, are a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures such as the following, listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:

1. The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis suggests that the atmosphere of the early Earth may have been chemically reducing in nature, composed primarily of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent.
2. In such a reducing atmosphere, electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
3. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
4.A fundamental question is about the nature of the first self-replicating molecule. Since replication is accomplished in modern cells through the cooperative action of proteins and nucleic acids, the major schools of thought about how the process originated can be broadly classified as "proteins first" and "nucleic acids first".

More discussion and background at the link.

[goldent]

25. I guess the question is the boundary between the origin of life and evolution

It seems like to "boot strap" evolution you need replication of RNA. Now, can you get to such a thing from inorganic matter in one step, or were there evolutionary-like steps within the origin of life process?

[Jim__]

29. He's not asking that question, at least not in this video.

At least he doesn't ask that in the 4 minutes of this video. Some of the questions he asks:

Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from?

How do you get DNA without a cell membrane?

How do you get a cell membrane without DNA?

I don't believe anyone is afraid to ask questions like that. I don't believe anyone pretends to know the answers to those questions. People are working on finding the answers. Even if someone does think she knows the answers, her answers are not generally accepted. And throughout his talk, he's speaking of this as evolution. But those questions are outside the domain of the Theory of Evolution.

In about the last 25 seconds of the video, he changes and says he doesn't understand speciation. That question is within the domain of the theory. My very strong expectation is that there are biologists who could give him a pretty good explanation of speciation. But, he doesn't acknowledge that he's just changed topics; he's equivocated on the term evolution. It may be that outside of this 4 minutes he acknowledges that he's talking about 2 different topics. But, within the video, he's misrepresenting what it is that he doesn't understand. Essentially claiming that even the experts do not understand evolution. That is a misrepresentation. I have a hard time believing that he doesn't know that it's a misrepresentation.

[GaYellowDawg]

32. He's either dishonest

Or he's fooling himself.

How do you get a cell membrane without DNA? O.M.G. Phospholipids spontaneously form into micelles or bilayers in solution. You know, because the polar heads are hydrophilic, and the nonpolar tails are hydrophobic. If he can't figure that one out, then he's a completely incompetent chemist, too.

[Permanut]

9. Evolution clearly doesn't work..

If our premise is that evolution favors mutations that we see as some kind of advancement, then where did Republicans come from?

[DreamGypsy]

10. There is no apriori 'direction' to evolution...

...no concept of 'advancement' or of progress toward a particular 'goal'.

Natural selection favors survival under the conditions existing at the time. Survival generally entails reproductive success of the species.

[Posteritatis]

13. Your premise is incorrect. (nt)

[Permanut]

14. Points taken..

This was just my not very good attempt to imply that Republicans are an evolutionary dead end.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. What do you mean by "Fish + 400 million years =/= Humans"? He didn't say that

Others are right - for most of the time, he's saying "evolution", but talking about the appearance of the first living cell with DNA and a cell membrane, which isn't 'evolution'. Exactly how DNA and a cell membrane came together is indeed still unclear. There are hypotheses about RNA, for instance, being an intermediary step; about cells forming in porous rock, which could produce something like a membrane without the cell mechanism that does it now, and so on.

He does switch to evolution right at the end - like many creationists or ID proponents, he says he understands 'microevolution', but seems to think there is some barrier between that and speciation. Which there isn't, and any evolutionary biologist can explain that to him.

But "Fish + 400 million years =/= Humans" is your wording, not his. Do you need evolution explained to you?

[Orsino]

16. If he doesn't understand that abiogenesis and evolution are different things...

...then he's a dumbass or a liar.

[hunter]

17. Yet another dumb ass creationist. More "Micro Evolution" vs. "Macro" bullshit.

It's all evolution. He understands "micro," but not "macro?"

No, seriously,

It's all a matter of time. Time is BIG. Given the leverage of a few billion years and the energy input of a fairly stable sun, then life will inevitably become increasingly complex.

There are some surprises. Many species have accumulated very deep genetic toolkits and can adapt quickly as environmental conditions change. They don't need to develop entirely novel genes and structures, these genes already exist, easily turned on or off, easily brought to the surface by simple signals and sexual recombination. Dogs, horses, and people are a pretty good example of this. The ancestor wolves of domestic dogs had a deep genetic toolkit, and that's why we now have dogs that fit in purses and dogs as big as ponies. Same with humans. Homo sapiens have suffered near extinction events but every time we have bounced back with dark skinned people, light skinned people, big people, small people, tall people, short people. That's all in the Homo sapien genetic toolkit, mostly unused in any individual, but always in reserve, just below the surface.

The mechanisms of evolution are diverse, and we don't understand them all, but this does not imply any supernatural power or divine intervention. Given a few billion years all sorts of things are inevitable. It's the first law of nature. That which can happen will happen, that which cannot happen will not happen.

What I, trained as a biologist, have taken away from this is that life has evolved to evolve. Evolution itself is part of life's toolkit.

I'm not an atheist (which may be some intellectual failing of mine) but I prefer a God who built the universe, lit the fuse, and stood back knowing exactly what would happen.

The god of the creationists and many of the "intelligent design" people is a pathetic hack. I wouldn't worship that kind of god.

[smallcat88]

21. What the human race doesn't know

would fill entire galaxies. Little more than a century after the industrial revolution, suddenly, if we don't understand it - it can't be. What arrogance. Science is still looking for an explanation of the missing link. I don't entirely understand evolution either; that doesn't mean it isn't real or doesn't exist. The one thing I'm constantly reminded does exist - the utter, unjustified arrogance and ignorance of people who continue to believe in fairy tales because they can't accept what they don't (or don't want to) understand.

[dballance]

23. Hosts: Shouldn't This be in "Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience"

Evolution is a pretty settled concept. This guy is diving down to the molecular level and insisting we discuss it there. It is not necessary that molecules or enzymes evolve in order for organisms to evolve.

[Johonny]

24. Lots of smart people like making money telling people what they want to hear

how many creationists actual believe what they spout rather than focus on the $$ aspect of promoting creationism...

[GaYellowDawg]

33. BINGO.

I could double my salary easily (hell, probably quadruple) by going on the megachurch talk circuit and presenting myself as a former evolutionist who saw the light, blah, blah. Problem is, I couldn't look at myself in the mirror if I did.

Lots of people making good money by Lying For Jesus. The real pity of it is, I think a substantial portion of them are lying for the paycheck, not for Jesus.

[gtar100]

28. I tend to agree.

Evolution hasn't worked for fundamentalists of many, many stripes, including this guy. I'd say it hasn't worked for him at all. It's been a tremendous failure.

That, or he just needs to evolve more.