Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

no scientist alive today understands macroevolution

Recommended Posts

James Tour made that claim! Who is James Tour?

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction.

He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents.

Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/

Here's an excerpt from a very long article by James Tour in which he discussed the skepticism to macro-evolution,

From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution. The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution.

And these “oldest problems in evolutionary biology” lead me and many others to our being “skeptical.” It is not a matter of politics. I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me?

Furthermore, when I, a non-conformist, ask proponents for clarification, they get flustered in public and confessional in private wherein they sheepishly confess that they really don’t understand either. Well, that is all I am saying: I do not understand. But I am saying it publicly as opposed to privately. Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution?

If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me. Lunch will be my treat. Until then, I will maintain that no chemist understands, hence we are collectively bewildered.

http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/the-scientist-and-his-%E2%80%9Ctheory%E2%80%9D-and-the-christian-creationist-and-his-%E2%80%9Cscience%E2%80%9D/

In that lengthy article, he also discussed the politics of macro-evolution.

In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this.

Hence, by my observation, the unfair treatment upon the skeptics of macroevolution has not come from the administration level.

But my recent advice to my graduate students has been direct and revealing: If you disagree with Darwinian Theory, keep it to yourselves if you value your careers, unless, of course, you’re one of those champions for proclamation; I know that that fire exists in some, so be ready for lead-ridden limbs. But if the scientific community has taken these shots at senior faculty, it will not be comfortable for the young non-conformist.

For the United States, I pray that the scientific community and the National Academy in particular will investigate the disenfranchisement that is manifest upon some of their own, and thereby address the inequity.

Some have asked me what I think of the movie, “Expelled. No Intelligence Allowed.” I saw a closed viewing of the movie in February 2008, two months before its public showing. It was difficult for me to watch because it struck so close to home, thus I am sure that my feelings were different than the other non-scientists in the theater.

http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/the-scientist-and-his-%E2%80%9Ctheory%E2%80%9D-and-the-christian-creationist-and-his-%E2%80%9Cscience%E2%80%9D/

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the above OP article, James Tour had mentioned the movie, EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed.

For those who are interested,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

He acknowledge that unfair treatment is meted to those who voice their skepticism towards macroevolution.

That a subset of the scientific establishment is retarding the careers of Darwinian skeptics is true as far as I have witnessed personally.

If there are legitimate scientific skepticisms regarding the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution, those skeptics are sometimes stifled through unfair treatment regarding their career advancement; that is real although most scientists would say that such attacks on careers are nonexistent.

A small number of scientists would say that the stifled deserve stifling.

Therefore, if attention can be brought to the unfortunate state in science through the movie, let it come.

http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/the-scientist-and-his-%E2%80%9Ctheory%E2%80%9D-and-the-christian-creationist-and-his-%E2%80%9Cscience%E2%80%9D/

James Tour has reached the top and made a name for himself, thus he can afford to be vocal.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is just evolution. No macro or micro. Those terms were made-up by church types.

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is just evolution. No macro or micro. Those terms were made-up by church types.

You're dead wrong.

Anyway....I just created the evolution thread at science section.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is just evolution. No macro or micro. Those terms were made-up by church types.

Some scientists beg to differ with you....thus they make the referral to macro-evolution.

You should contact, and correct them. Those bleedin' scientists don't know what they're talking about......

........they ought to smarten up and listen to you.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, look what I coincidentally found, right on cue!

They're now saying that dogs are not related to wolves! And all this time scientists were saying the closest living relatives of dogs were wolves! :lol:

Where did dogs come from? That simple question is the subject of a scientific debate right now.

In May, a team of scientists published a study pointing to East Asia as the place where dogs evolved from wolves. Now, another group of researchers has announced that dogs evolved several thousand miles to the west, in Europe.

This controversy is intriguing even if you’re not a dog lover. It illuminates the challenges scientists face as they excavate the history of any species from its DNA.

In the 1990s, scientists started using new techniques to explore the origin of dogs. They sequenced bits of DNA from living dog breeds and wolves from various parts of the world to see how they were related. And the DNA told a different story than the bones. In fact, it told different stories.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/14/science/wolf-to-dog-scientists-agree-on-how-but-not-where.html

Let's see how fast evolutionists will try to salvage that, and come up with "likely scenarios."

You gotta hand it to evolutionists - they're quite adept with the good old band-aid for plugging holes.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Squid

You actually think scientists understand everything about gravity?

https://www.newscien...-about-gravity/

I'm asking you, do they have empirical evidence of gravity? Yes, or no.

It's one thing to have evidence, and yet not fully understand (like gravity - that keeps us firmly on the ground).....

..................but it's another thing altogether to.........

.........HAVING NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, THAT'S WHY THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND!

Everything about macro evolution is mere assumption.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm asking you, do they have empirical evidence of gravity? Yes, or no.

There is empirical evidence for gravity, like there is for evolution.

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution

Try reading some science about both. You don't understand what scientists know about gravity and you are ignorant about evolution. It's actually gross, and I actually feel dirty talking to you about it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some scientists beg to differ with you....thus they make the referral to macro-evolution.

You should contact, and correct them. Those bleedin' scientists don't know what they're talking about......

........they ought to smarten up and listen to you.

There are no expert opinions in science.

Just the scientific method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is empirical evidence for gravity, like there is for evolution.

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution

Try reading some science about both. You don't understand what scientists know about gravity and you are ignorant about evolution. It's actually gross, and I actually feel dirty talking to you about it...

Then give an evidence for macro evolution!

Cite your source - give the precise location (don't expect me to look for it).

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no expert opinions in science.

Just the scientific method.

And? What's that supposed to mean? :lol:

If scientists are baffled about macro evolution.....something's gotta be wrong with the methodology.....or the scientists making such claims of discovery!

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then give an evidence for macro evolution!

Cite your source - give the precise location (don't expect me to look for it).

Fair enough. Give your own hypothesis as to why the dandelion bothers to waste energy when it didn't used to before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And? What's that supposed to mean? :lol:

If scientists are baffled about macro evolution.....something's gotta be wrong with the methodology.....or the scientists making such claims of discovery!

It means exactly what it says, betsy. There are no expert opinions in science. Just the scientific method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. Give your own hypothesis as to why the dandelion bothers to waste energy when it didn't used to before.

Nope. I already responded to your dandelions.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25665-national-academy-of-sciences-says-about-creation-of-the-universe-by-go/page-21

You made claims about evidence for macro evolution - now, I'm asking you to give an evidence.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. I already responded to your dandelions.

You made claims about evidence for macro evolution - now, I'm asking you to give an evidence.

Walk outside and observe a dandelion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walk outside and observe a dandelion.

In other words, you can't cite one. Because, there's no evidence for macro evolution!

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, you can't cite one. Because, there's no evidence for macro evolution!

I just gave you one. That you choose to ignore it is your issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just gave you one. That you choose to ignore it is your issue.

Don't give me adaptation. And I have no problem with micro evolution.

MACRO-EVOLUTION, DogOnPorch. Evidence for Macro evolution.

Here's the definition, taken from biology online - therefore, this also proves your claim wrong that there's no such thing.

Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Macroevolution

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is adaption to the environment via natural selection. Man can also have a hand in this see: the cow...a human invention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is adaption to the environment via natural selection. Man can also have a hand in this see: the cow...a human invention.

Give an evidence of MACRO EVOLUTION.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My title for this topic is incomplete!

In a more recent talk at Georgia Tech, James Tour went even further and claimed:

no scientist that he has spoken to understands macroevolution – and that includes Nobel Prize winners!

I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners.

I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together.

I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.

I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea.

I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give an evidence of MACRO EVOLUTION.

Isn't macro evolution just intelligent design sneaking in the back door?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give an evidence of MACRO EVOLUTION.

What in your opinion is macro evolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...