Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tour#Religion

Tour is a Messianic Jew:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism
Messianic Judaism[a] is a modern syncretic[1]religious movement that combines Christianity—most importantly, the belief that Jesus is the Hebrew messiah—with elements of Judaism and Jewish tradition.[2][3][4][5] It emerged in the 1960s and 1970s.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

yep, no agenda or baggage....Much!!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Evidently you don't even read through all of my posts. Your redundant and below-the-belt attack on Tour was covered, but not as a crude, oblique attempt to undermine his critique of mainstream positions on naturalistic abiogenesis, 2nd last para in #53. Too bad you have a pathological absence of any healthy ability to experience shame.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Which is based on time and space . A mathematical concept of life .

Not on anything physical . Hence no life forms .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well yes, since most of your posts are filled with childish bravado and on-line challenges, most are ignored or treated with the contempt they deserve.
And again, obviously if Tour had anything of a concrete nature, the religious fanatics, creationist ratbags and IDers, would be sprouting it from the highest hill. They don't because he hasn't.

Now back on topic, show me logically and scientifically, how life came to be...remember, scientifically. I'll help you out.....At one time there was no life...no elements, not even atoms...understand that part? Then, voila, basic microbial life surface, and evolved to what we see today. We call that process/model/theory/postulate Abiogenesis. What science is unsure of, and what pieces of the puzzle remain hidden, is the exact means and pathway that lead to life.
As one of my excellent articles/paper put it, Abiogenesis and Evolution, "rather than manifesting two discrete stages in the emergence of complex life, actually constitute one single physicochemical process".

Now instead of taking as gospel the claims of a religious nut [Tour] and blindly following him because it seemingly throws some light on your own mythical beliefs, read the practical knowledgable papers that I have so far presented and stop painting yourself into the proverbial "anti science corner" that others finally realize on this forum, based on your belief in conspiracy nonsense, and your dismissal of probably one of the most verified and successfully predicted theories in all of science.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You do have one up on me q-reeus, I certainly don't fanatically read all your posts, only those that attempt to deride science. What my Mrs and I have is tolerance my friend, just as I do for her church choir friends that come to our house once every month for practise.
I leave the hypocrisy to your ilk.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I have posted this before, but this is really a comprehensive synopsis of the evolution from chemistry to bio-chemistry and life on earth. Robert Hazen at the Carnegie Institute of Science.

start at 25:00 to avoid a lengthy introduction

 

Tour is now 'a religious nut' - on your low IQ and low morals say so? The rabid barking attack dog free to roam the streets of SF town. Ah well.
All your counterclaims buoyed by the wishful thinking scenarios and conjectures and unjustifiable projections in your thread flooding articles are imo cut down very effectively by JT. Refusal to even examine them condemns you to continued willful ignorance.

 

Pretty close to it.....
https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/personal-statement/

Ps: You have yet to take my advice and read some of the article/papers that I have presented and the views generally held by the scientific community in general. And those many views, observations and experiments certainly trump the biased ramblings of a religious nut and those that blindly support him. What were you saying about my thread flooding articles??? You mean the ones that totally refute your new hero? I have a few more yet.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

At last! Some substance in your arguments...."IN YOUR OPINION" and we have heard that in other areas and fields also!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I have already explained this to you, in different ways, at least three times on this thread. But, like any crank, you just ignore what I say. I see no point in trying again.

 

Yep, and that's what the world's great bulk of scientists believe, more or less, and as summed up perfectly I believe here....... "show me logically and scientifically, how life came to be...remember, scientifically. I'll help you out.....At one time there was no life...no elements, not even atoms...understand that part? Then, voila, basic microbial life surface, and evolved to what we see today. We call that process/model/theory/postulate Abiogenesis. What science is unsure of, and what pieces of the puzzle remain hidden, is the exact means and pathway that lead to life.
As one of my excellent articles/paper put it, Abiogenesis and Evolution, "rather than manifesting two discrete stages in the emergence of complex life, actually constitute one single physicochemical process".

 

No you just played with semantics. Since you though apparently accept that life arose from non life, perhaps you should be berating your old friend q-reeus. We call that bias and no I aint no crank and have offered science, OK?

 

Please yourself. With almost zero checks and balances on you here, that is virtually guaranteed.

Try that approach yourself sometime. But you won't, not on this to you sacred and sacrosanct issue for which any doubt is heresy. Good thing burning at the stake is off limits nowadays.

 

Pleasing myself is not the object here. Life has arisen from non life and there is only one scientific answer.

I understand and know my limitations, you apparently don't know yours and prefer as you have done again, conspiracy nonsense and taking what some obviously religious, highly religious person has said and claimed, over the whole mainstream scientific scenario which is beyond reproach. The emergence of life from non life.
Oh, more advice from an old bloke, watch the new video that WriteW4 has posted...rather lengthy but so far after only a few minutes, quite informative, and without any hint of baggage.

 

Worth comparing one aspect of the difference in attitude from the Hazen video by WriteW4 and the q-reeus James Tour video...
Hazen takes questions towards the end...the other does not.

 

New video? Hardly. He has posted it many times before in various threads. Flashy visuals and a suave presentation with leading suggestions here and there. Little else really.
From that you should gather I did watch it - quite some time back. And your reckless tirades tells me you are far from acknowledging your severe limitations.

 

Fool. The vid last linked to by me was clearly stated as being an excerpt. Tour in various full length vids has taken plenty of questions - and answered them very well indeed. No ducking and weaving.

 

It sure put the Tour video to shame and showed to be fabricated nonsense of what I have read so far.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Probably in his local church hall!!!
https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/personal-statement/
Now go take your medication before you really go round the bend!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

IMO, that's a hasty conclusion. As Hazen just demonstrated the mutative chemical reactions and the resulting Darwinian evolution from the very first complex molecules all along a probability curve.

Life evolved chemically and probabilistically, perhaps even dependent on electric stimulation in the formation of complex polymers, but then exponentially as greater complexity resulted in ever greater sensory abilities and survival skills.
Life is the ability to suffer and to be able to avoid pain.
Anil Seth; "You don't need to be smart to suffer, but you probably have to be alive".

One such dynamic chemical interaction is the bacterial flagella, a purely chemical motor which propels one of the first single celled prokaryotic mobile organisms (the paramecium) which was able to hunt for food, a extraordinary advantage in the natural world.

Once the final bottleneck from bio-chemical to organic was breached, it is quite possible that an exponential spread of animals led to a speed up of evolutionary processes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote

We definitely know of the population explosion with the appearance of the Eukaryote replacing the Prokaryote era:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote

Then a third pillar;

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://www.britannica.com/science/eukaryote/media/1/195150/115009

IMO, this "neural network" is the proto sentience distribution center on which all later sentient life depends for survival.

 

Back on track......
The actual extraordinary scientific evidence that Abiogenesis did take place, is that we are here to talk about it.

But as usual, the creationists and their ilk ask for more then that....
All the evidence that we have is for a very early evolutionary Period.
One of the proposals is that life arose from a "Prebiotic Soup"......but there is no evidence of that soup. As listed previously there are many other possible paths to the emergence of life. But as yet we are unable to pin point that. Still that gap in our knowledge certainly does not invalidate the fact that via Abiogenesis, life emerged somewhere or elsewhere and was carried here via comets etc.

It comes as no shock to me that those that lean towards ID, for whatever reason, will be put out by that scientific fact. Others prefer to argue semantics and avoid upsetting mates, while others will wax on lyrically and philosophically, arguing precisely nothing. Understandable why some renowned physicists like Krauss and the late Stephen Hawking, spoke and wrote harshly about the possibility that philosophy has had its day in the Sun.
In effect they are actually smugly asking for an impossible set of standards or "direct"evidence for Abiogenesis, while at the same time, champing at the bit to then suggest their own brand of supernatural myth and nonsense.

Universal Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer for life...Fact:

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

When I said voila! and then life emerged, it simply was a metaphor. I mean the universe existed without any elements for 380,000 years!
Nice post by the way.