Common Design and Information

James Tour seems to be becoming a favoured go-to for antievolution types.

Dr. Tour is a noted and leading organic chemist, to be sure - but he’s not well informed about evolution, alas. His usual angle is to ask exactly how evolution works at the level of organic chemistry - molecule to molecule, as it were - where there is very little knowledge at that level (there is some, but not much). He also avoids the abundant evidence we do have for evolution at other levels.

If I wanted to, I could ask Dr. Tour to explain the chemistry of bond formation at the level of elementary particles - how do quarks and muons, for example, interact when bonds form or break? When I’ve put this question to organic chemists I know, they say they have no idea, and that no one has an idea. They know they’re in there, but they don’t know how things happen at that level of detail.

Now, if I were to give a lecture about how “there is no known mechanism for bond formation” because no one knows how muons do their thing do you think that would be sufficient to cast doubt on organic chemistry as a whole? That’s the equivalent of what Tour is saying here. He’s also not speaking to an academically trained audience - rather, he’s speaking to Christians who are predisposed to uncritically accept his statements on evolution because they themselves already doubt it or reject it.


Quite a bit is known about the evolution of the immune system. I’m (slowly) working on a second book and a big chunk of it is trying to make the cool stuff we know about how the immune system works and how it evolved accessible to non specialists.


I don’t think you know what that means

Then we disagree. :wink:

And yet various evolutionists publish papers that invoke chemistry on how they think life began - even though the chemistry they propose in naïve in relation to the topic they so carelessly promote.:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Sorry Prode, but if you are not a biologist, what makes you think that you know what biologists don’t know?

Thinking that you know more about a subject that you haven’t studied, than people who have spent years mastering it, is just presumptive arrogance. Learn some humility, man.


What is really interesting is that there are, apparently, no biologists or even Evolutionary scholars on this forum so the pseudo scientists take the floor. What I have read would have been swiftly answered and put down on the now Defunct Biblical Discussion forum. That being said, my theistic Evolution was virtually unheard of and therefore dismissed as without support or verification
I wonder whether any one else can actually define the Evolutionary process or TOE?
(Apologies if I have read this wrong)


While there are a lot like me who dabble, there are multiple posters here who are Ph. D level scholars, university level teachers and researchers. A few on this particular thread are @glipsnort, @pevaquark, and @DennisVenema. I may have missed someone, if so my apologies

My employers will be surprised to learn that I’m not a biologist.


Ditto. They also might wonder why I teach evolution classes.


I only teach one class session per year, but it’s on evolution. (And it’s on YouTube – 397 views for this year’s talk. I’m a star.)


Why do I have the song “video killed the radio star” running through my head? :slight_smile:

I think you misunderstood Richard. He was simply saying that he doesn’t read the forum but likes to write on it.

An interesting assessment there, Richard, given that we have on this forum scientists who worked on the Human Genome Project, biology professors, and even the editor of one of the foremost peer-reviewed academic journals in cell biology.

What about you? What are your qualifications to assess who is a biologist or an evolutionary scholar and who isn’t?

1 Like

Hopefully by the time you get to this response you will realize you were mistaken.

Also we have all kinds around here. This forum welcomes all opinions, unlike others, and it is not always easy to identify a person’s position based on a few lines of a comment.

Link? Can’t find

(with my name misspelled on the slide, which just sits there for 3 minutes)

Haha thanks!

I said that I might be mistaken, and it appears that I am, so well and good. However, I have not seen the evidence, but that may be because I have not read every single posting. I note that no one volunteered the definitions, but perhaps they considered it beneath them. My own qualifications are dated but I did study Biology up to Collegic level I have tried to keep abrest of modern theory, but have despaired at the Popular assumptions encouraged by the BBC and David Attenborough, who appears to have got more radical as he has aged.
Please accept my apologies for any unintended insults


Sure thing, Richard. It does point out that when we have been around awhile, we tend to get familiar with the frequent flyers and that leads to assumptions that are not really fair to the newcomers. On the other hand, we tend not to tout creditials too much but rather ask that the arguments themselves be adequate, avoiding appeals to authority unlike some places on the internet. Still it is helpful to know when an argument is backed with a foundation of knowledge.

In any case, that is to say thank you for giving a little personal background on yourself, and we look forward to getting know you better. For myself, I studied biology as an undergrad, and am a semi-retired M.D. in family practice. I like to think the shape of my knowledge is wide but regretfully shallow.

Perhaps we should use the profile function of the forum software more to get to know one another. It is actually hard to find even if filled out.