Debate Teacher Reacts: James Tour vs. Dave Farina

James Tour’s Opening Challenge on Peptide Formation

Unaware of this, he said it in the email you're not showing the whole email.

Yeah, you're only showing the one.

Where is the moderator? Can somebody go find him?

First, i can't resist confronting james about some of these lies he's been telling, so uh, let's list a few and get some answers.

Nope, let's ask a question and stop making speeches during a segment of debate that really should only require questions, guys.

Even if you have the wrong enantiomer, it doesn't work. Even donna blackmon has said that in the papers you have no clue what donna blackmon.

It's it's hard not to see, farina as somebody whose mouth is writing checks that his papers can't cash.

And it's just

Show us! Right here!

I just showed you!

Do it!

Do it! Come on, do it! Do it! Which of you, in my audience, told me to react to this? How could you do this to me? The the audience, as well as myself, are gonna need therapy after this debate. Well, well, well, it is tuesday, it's time to party.

I'm your excellent host, nate zalla and welcome to wise disciple, where we're helping you become the effective christian that you were meant to be as a lot of you know by now, uh, before i jumped into ministry i was a debate teacher, and so i sometimes look at debates and react to them purely as a judge would and i break down who's doing a better job and all of that.

Well, today, y 'all have spoken and you told me that you want me to react to james tour vs dave farina on the topic are we clueless about the origin of life? This debate took place a few weeks ago in houston, texas at rice university, where dr tour is a professor of chemistry and by the way, rice is a lovely university.

So, i don't know if you knew this, but, you know, i currently live in las vegas but i used to live in dallas, and have made it to houston and hou It's it's a very lovely, old, greek-style university campus.

If you ever get a chance to see it, it really does look amazing. Humidity notwithstanding. Well, as always, i think cross-examination is where it's at. So, skipping ahead past the opening statements which, by the way, i have already seen and i encourage you to watch the opening statements yourself.

If you have not already done that, i will leave a link in the description there. So, let's just jump into the discussion segment. By the way, if you haven't already, check out the wise disciple store where you can get some very cool things including this ethos pathos logos mug that's out of

There we go. Ethos pathos logos mug where if you've heard me talk about the principles of good rhetoric from aristotle and how they apply to good debate then i think you can appreciate this wonderful coffee mug and you can rep wise disciple there and let other people know about this ministry.

And i really appreciate those of you that have already done that.

The Debate Moves Into Cross-Examination

We now turn to dr tour who will ask a question.

One of the things that we have to make in order to have life are polypeptides where we take amino acids and these amino acids have to couple.

You know what would be great is if there is this elaborate sort of formula written on the board there and matt damon from goodwill hunting just like kind of walks out from the crowd and goes up and finishes the equation that would be just me?

Is that

This dipeptide is one of thousands and thousands and thousands that would have to form if you were going to make a polypeptide you'd need at least a hundred of these for a very small polypeptide. Mr farina show me the prebiotic chemistry that would do this.

Coupling. Be my guest.

Okay.

Don't know what i'm looking at on the blackboard but i understand that polypeptides are an essential component of life. So what does the chemical step-by-step process look like that gives us polypeptides in the first place?

Great question. Let's see how farina responds.

Yeah i don't need the board so this was my second prompt so i guess we'll circle back to this. But yeah you keep going. Show me the references in your content. But so you're missing a mountain of research literally a mountain of research that demonstrates this.

Here's one. Condensation of amino acids form peptides in aqueous solution. So we've got sulfur 4 oxidative model carbonyl sulfide mediated prebiotic formation of peptides. There's another one.

That does not do it and the two you showed do not do it. This is called asparagine dk. They do not do it with these.

Okay so what is

Lehman's a fraud gadiri's a fraud. Are you calling them fraud? They published a paper. Carbonyl sulfide mediated prebiotic formation of peptides. If you're saying they didn't do that.

Show me the example in there. I studied this. I looked over every paper you put up.

You have never studied anything in this area. Are you kidding me? All you do is go show me the papers and then i show you papers here. Let's see if i can find.

Pretty contentious debate so far. Clearly farina has no respect for tour but just so we're keeping track. Tour asked for farina to provide the step-by-step process to explain the formation of polypeptides and farina so far has given the title of two papers but not yet answered the question.

Okay.

But let's see if he does.

That one exactly.

Yeah show me the one exactly that does this in a prebiotic fashion.

Show me.

It's not there i'm asking you to come up and show me the chemistry.

I don't need to write on the board. I brought actual papers. This is actual research.

Show me the paper. Show me in that paper this example. This is called.

Actually because tour has been allowed to write this all out on the blackboard which is very dramatic and again it just kind of reminds me of goodwill hunting for some reason farina probably should go to the board now and write something down or else he won't be able to match the rhetorical power of tour using the blackboard in that way.

This is the one you wanted.

Aspartic acid this is called lysteine.

James look this is the gadiri paper. Here's the scheme you want to. You want to go through that. But aqueous room temperature you get oligopeptides and it jumps to 80 yield with prebiotic oxidizing agents.

But not not with this because what happens is this. Would participate.

This. Oh you want to do the side chain thing. Okay. Well we've got research for that too.

Of course i'm speaking to the side chain.

This is not glycine.

That's not prebiotically relevant but that has nothing to do with prebiotic.

Okay how about this one.

That sulfur compound was made separately in dichloromethane using hobt which is a coupling agent designed by human beings for solid phase synthesis.

That's how they are. You saying sulfur is not available prebiotically. It doesn't matter what solid they use.

No hobt was the compound that.

I remember one time i wandered uh this was in high school in the cafeteria. I wandered over to the wrong table and sat down with a bunch of dungeons and dragons players and tried to keep up with the language and terminology of you know these these kinds of people.

I feel the same way now like not to downplay at all the expertise on the stage there because it's way way more significant than dungeons and dragons. But i mean it's like man from my perspective i'm sure there's a few people out there in the youtube land or world that can actually keep up with every single thing.

That is said the rest of us are we're. We're trying to learn dungeons and dragons terminology here.

Sh compound that you just showed was made in a separate reaction. That was in a separate reaction and he describes that. Okay i can show you in the paper.

Well so but you know it sounds like tour's issue with farina is that farina is not answering the question because the paper that he's trying to cite does not engage with the specific chemical formula necessary for life that tour has written on the board.

Farina's paper which i suppose contains its own formula smuggles in a manufactured environment that does not match the prebiotic conditions and it seems like farina agrees which is why he appears to be shifting to another paper.

By the way did i mention this is not a cross-examination. This isn't even really a discussion. This so far appears to be an argument that you would find at a pub on game night you know. Or like at your in-laws on thanksgiving you know.

Remember the types of questions that you should ask in cross-examination. They follow a very specific formula. You ask leading questions that are designed to poke holes in your interlocutor's main contentions even though this isn't a formal time of cross that's probably what should be happening here.

And then when you know your interlocutor answers your question move on to another question. Right. That would be much more productive than saying you're wrong. Because right that that's all for the rebuttals.

That's all for the closing you know.

If you don't like that one how about this pounder. One pounder jacks regius left. Of peptide formation acylated amino nitrile. Wait hold on. I got the scheme here.

It's not in there.

You're going to look and look. It's not in there. I studied every one of your papers. Pounder doesn't even use uh amino acids he uses an amino.

Amino nitrile.

My amino nitrile.

Totally different paper. James that's not the same paper.

You're talking about a different. There is no coupling.

He got coupling with lysine regio selective lysine ligation the most selective peptide ligation that tolerates all proteinogenic side chains.

But he did this. It's not with all side amino acid coupling.

He's got you're talking about prebiotic catalytic peptide.

So tour started off very interestingly. Uh show me the money. Right. Show me the chemical formula. But when farina starts to try and answer the question tour jumps in and says that's wrong. The paper doesn't say that when in actuality tour should just simply communicate the same sentiment through further questioning.

You know that that would be a more effective strategy. Farina can you show us the formula to get these specific compounds using prebiotic conditions or whatever it's called. Right. You say it contains the step by step process this paper show us on the board so we can evaluate it.

Right. Farina should go to the board and do something or else. He he's just missing an opportunity to return this powerful serve by tour. And that's what this was. I mean this was rhetorically the equivalent of a jump serve in volleyball.

Side ligation.

There's no amino acids there.

Yes it's amino acids.

Go to the equation of that.

I know i don't have that one but you're just lying. You're also shifting the goal post though because by the way you you pretend that there are no papers that there are no papers that show any peptide formation in water.

I just showed you a ton. You're shifting goal posts by complaining about the side chain.

These are the ones you've got to do. If you can't you can't do it with these active side chains. You cannot but he did or didn't do it with the active side chains. He used an amino nitrile.

Okay there are no amino acids.

James you're talking about a completely different paper peptide ligation by chemoselective amino nitrile coupling in water.

That's an amino nitrile.

That is a different paper.

It's not amino acid coupling.

I know that's a different paper he takes amino this is just a different this is different. He's not going through peptide bond formation it's a different right. So he you have peptides you have.

You have.

If you're keeping track farina is not answering the question. Tour is asking for the process and farina is giving papers. I struggle to say at this point who has the advantage here because they're just arguing with each other.

Uh this could be you know mom and dad having a fight behind closed doors right now. You know it's probably gonna have to come down to who better engages with the topic as it has been agreed upon and who is answering challenges and who is furthering their contentions more successfully.

Amino acids condensing that's peptide formation. He's figuring out a different synthetic pathway that doesn't do coupling but it doesn't matter. There's a million of these right condensation.

By wet dry cycling he must select. Nobody has done this. I'm asking you for a specific reaction because half of the amino acids half of the amino acids have active side chains and these guys play this game of not including these ones that have carboxylic acids not including the ones that have.

Amines this is an ac you can't do this coupling acylated amino nitrile plus unprotected amino acid.

Uh hydrolyzed the ph7 right. Which. Amino acid. Hydroxylated ones. Never carboxylated never the emanated all proteinogenic side chains all from amino nitrile. James i'm telling you he did.

This with lysine. Okay. So the side chain thing is not a problem so forget the fact that you can't handle that right. That peptide formation in water happens and has been demonstrated by about a dozen.

Of these papers that i've shown you only now you're talking about an activator as you said in your.

Second series. It could be the case that farina is correct. The problem is there's an audience here. You know there was a there was a audience physically in the room and then there's an audience online uh presumably for years to come watching this video.

And it seems like these two guys have no idea that these that this audience exists right now. And much of the audience including myself have not read these papers and their content. Even if we had a background in chemistry we still might not have read those specific papers.

So what farina needs to do is simply answer the question and go up to the board and write out the formula or the scheme. Or he could just even verbalize it out loud. But that should advance the conversation instead of keeping uh all of us stuck in.

Will the papers say so. And then tours says well no it doesn't. The best way to refute tours assertion is to go up to the board and just write it out. But for some reason farina.

Just will not do that prebiotically. Plausible. Your first series. You never said this. As with an activated you're not coupling free amino acids okay you're not coupling carbonyl sulfide. Five.

Minutes. Um it now. Yeah. Whoa that is a meme. Look at. Let me go back a moment. What is that. Look. Somebody can psychologize what's happening. Right there. Dang. Look at that if you're wondering. Tours started out with a good move which was to ask for a specific explanation or step-by-step chemical process for certain compounds necessary for life using only prebiotic conditions.

Having heard this debate only in a few minutes i'm already sounding like a biology professor myself. Okay. The problem is everything that happens next serves to undermine tours good first move the the interruptions the proclaiming that that's not true that's false.

That doesn't work. Uh it undermines the question. And if we're not careful uh the audience will get lost and stray away from the original move which was to uh ask farina to go to the board and give us something.

So as debaters there's a lesson here about uh remaining controlled uh about not showing emotion about being professional and all that stuff. And and i think you can see why debaters are taught to remain calm and confident on the debate stage.

Um but you know. Let's let's uh let's keep going let's see what happens next.

Ribose, Borate Minerals, and the Moderator’s Interjections

So i just have um one quick comment going back to the nmr and that is when chemists organic chemists run nmrs they typically don't run them with boric acid present uh for a um uh if you're going to run.

A c13 nmr of ribose. You who is this person now. Is this one of the debaters teammates. Is this like second speaker to to tour or something like what. What the ribose to be as.

Pure as it can possibly be. Um but. But he's doing chemistry on borate minerals that's why it was.

Ribose borate. Um so now it's your turn. Sounds good. Yeah we'll get back to the peptides in a.

Second prompt. But um uh so uh we'll continue looking at research in a moment. But first i can't resist confronting james about some of these lies he's been telling. So uh let's list a few and.

Get some answers. So first the text. Nope. Let's ask a question and stop making speeches during a segment of debate that really should only require questions. Guys it's not that difficult. If this were currency we're only looking for paper money that has question marks on it.

That's it cook thing.

Primordial suit model is lightning and then a slithering creature crawls out. And that's what all these college level textbooks say. Again. No they don't. He made that up like a liar. Next this boutique field of a dozen researchers thing.

Of the millions of papers that comprise this field i went through a handful of the ones i've read and made this list. There are thousands more. Pretty dumb lie huh. And let's add one more. Uh when i had some scientists on my content to help expose james as a fraud.

One of them was a friend of mine organic chemist bruce lipschitz who explained how james was objectively wrong about peptides being unable to form in water. As i just showed you which i'll prove with about a dozen papers.

Or i did and will continue to do so. Uh this hurt james so badly that he spun a ridiculous lie about how i took an unrelated clip of bruce and stuck it in my content behind his back. This was so idiotic that i had to get bruce to make another statement specifying that i requested the clip from him and that i had permission to use it.

Though james did not have permission to share their email exchange in his emails with bruce. Bruce or in his emails with james bruce explicitly states that he was responding to the claims james had made there it is in red.

But his viewers can't read so they just ate up the fabricated story. Now again remember i'm demonstrating conclusively that james is a pathological liar. This is. So there's a question.

Here that maybe some of you are asking at this point is this approach by farina. I mean what do call this. Like the the pompous patronizing approach. You know the the snooty snobby approach right. Is that effective whether you're on the debate stage or not.

And i call this an approach because this is purposeful. This is not a mistake. You know that that some people legitimately make where they try to come across as erudite but accidentally come across as arrogant right.

Instead no this is on purpose. So then you have to ask the question like why do this. Is this effective. And the answer is no. You are taught in debate to do a couple of things. First to rely on the components of rhetoric in your delivery.

In other words in order to be effective you need to ensure that you track along what aristotle referred to as pathos ethos and logos. These component pieces should shape your delivery such that you should win over the judges in the audience if you develop those components properly.

If you track along those components well you know one of the components of rhetoric is not being a jerk. As a matter of fact rudeness can cause you to lose the whole debate even if you're actually the better interlocutor on stage.

Why is that. Because these kinds of emotion-based verbal attacks cloud the very thing that should stand out which is your principled argument whatever that is. And because judges and the audience consist of human beings and human beings are emotional creatures.

The worst thing that you can do to get an audience to carefully consider what you have to say even if it is correct and true 100 is to attack your opponent. And to even attack the audience. This is a horrible tactic to get people to listen to you and it persuades no one it certainly rouses your own base.

But guess what.

Virtue signaling is not debating. So this is important because james also lies about science that goes over most people's heads so by proving to you what a liar he is you are now primed to realize how he is lying about all the complex details of origin of life research as well.

This way you won't just nod your head. I wish they would have done formal cross. Uh this this style of communicate i don't know what this is. This is not tracking along a formal debate and i know there's play in the joints and you know a lot of these things that we see on youtube are not formal debates and the way that you would see something at the high school or college level.

But this like i think this has strayed too far. This right here this segment is a rebuttal that has wandered into the wrong segment which sounds like the beginning of a joke a rebuttal and a closing statement walk.

Into a cross-exam and assume james must be right. So uh let's begin. Let's begin with the textbook thing. Um why would you tell this dumb lie james. Why would you tell this lie. You think you've been.

Taught things that are we'll think about molecules in a puddle. Okay. So there is a primordial soup model and there is no understanding of what's happening in this primordial soup and you talk to people and this is exactly what they see.

They talk about the primordial soup model in all of.

These textbooks that's your question. This is the primordial soup model just means some molecules.

In water that's what it means. Look you were absolutely clueless on polypeptides. You never gave me the coupling for that reaction. I want you to notice. I'm going to narrate. This is my time now.

I want you to notice he didn't answer the question. Okay tour is now not answering the question. I mean so if it's fair to critique farina for not answering tour's question tour is doing the thing here.

He needs to stay focused and answer the question and i invited him to come up to show.

Me the chemistry how this is done. No he did not he did not and now you want me to say so. Now this is the question. The question is i just told you the primordial soup model is nonsense and this is in these textbooks you and this is taught over and over again into slithering creatures.

Is in textbooks. Show me the textbook. Show me the textbook that says molecules form into slithering.

Because this is exactly the model that the model okay so i just decided to pause this exchange and move away and take a few minutes and just sift through the email exchange leading up to the debate. Uh the link for the email exchange between tour and farina is in the notes of the original video.

It's pretty wild guys and it seems to me having read through it because i'm watching this exchange and i'm like man like what happened to turn this debate into what it actually became right. And so i just figured i'd go back and look.

But it seems to me as i read through it that there is just a fundamental lack of understanding when it comes to debate to debate formats and the purpose of debate. And i mean i'm not critiquing anybody specifically here i just this whole exercise is a bit of a mess.

When you title your debates which by the way farina was the one who suggested the title for the debate you know are we clueless about the origin of life. When you title a debate this way it makes it unclear who shoulders the burden of proof.

And it also makes it unclear what the various debaters roles are. For example in a debate that's titled james tour is lying about origin of science. Well then it definitely makes sense for farina to do what he's doing right now which is completely attack tour.

But when the title of the debate that you came up with is are we clueless about the origin of life. Then it's now on you to answer the question as well. And so you have to do more than merely attack james tour and his comments.

Even if tour is incorrect on his views and you demonstrate this as a debater on that stage you still have not answered the topic question which is a problem. Because if you're not answering the question then you're not doing what is necessary for you to win this debate.

Tour in his opener at least made a case that origin of life researchers cannot provide an adequate explanation for the five compounds that he has listed on that blackboard. Hence why he wanted farina to come up to the board and fill in some kind of process or explanation as to how you get those compounds.

I mean that's that's actually a pretty solid opening strategy. But farina with all of his references to papers is simply attacking tour which again does not help him win this debate. He still needs to take the extra step and answer the topic question.

Molecules come together. These form higher.

Organisms that come out of the water molecules form higher organisms that come out. Yes yes. Show.

Me the textbook that i don't have. The textbook. There they are. There they are. The smelly soup model. You have a list right there james. I showed you. That's from my video. You have the list. This is what the textbooks show.

Ribozymes autocatalysis. All the things that you go back. Go back to my slide. Go back to my slide. All right now. Don't change it now. Which textbook were you referring. Because i said right there it says miniature c prebiotic soup.

Those are quotes from each one of.

Molecules forming a slithering creature. No they don't because that's a lie and you're not going.

To run out the clock. How about the. Well so again were this an ideal debate. Tour would have one or two quotes to back himself up here uh with regard to farina's challenge. Uh. But then again so would farina.

Right. Farina could read a book cited by tour and show that his terminology is not present in it to the audience. That is and then ask again which textbook talks about a slithering creature or whatever.

Farina's issue specifically is. But no instead we've got shouting i quoted from those books. No you didn't. That's a lie. The the audience as well as myself are going to need therapy after.

This debate. Dozen people thing does that look like a dozen people to you. What i meant by that.

The number of people that are doing the complex organic sutherland pounder type synthesis this is exactly what benner told you. No benner told you people all over the world. It's a very small me i have.

No benner told you on the video that there's a small there's a small number of people that are still doing the sutherland type of complex synthesis is most of the area is not doing that.

Is a boutique community. It's a small number of people. It's a dozen people it was in reference.

To the the number of people that are doing the complex sutherland type. The origin of life.

Community the origin of life community you're talking about the field in general. How about the bruce thing. This was pretty dumb right. He just took one of the guy's videos and stuck it.

Because when i contacted bruce bruce said to me i don't even know what you're talking about. I was asked me to comment on some of your writing the whole email and specifically about what we are doing.

And does this show. No why don't. Why don't you show the page. Why don't you show the page where he said. I had no idea that this is there. Look i published the whole email. Yeah you're only.

Showing the one that i where is the moderator is. Did he. Can somebody go find him. Is he on a bathroom break who is running the show at this point. Because this is quickly starting to sound like.

A jackhammer breaking up asphalt. I asked for the video and he's talking about you and then here you.

Go. No you don't want to show the one where he said where he said. I had no idea i think he should apologize. You're not you're not gonna address anything on life. This was pretty this was a.

Pretty dumb. This is a really monologue instead of people shouting at each other. So there there.

You are there you are mr moderator. Get it back on track. Guy. Maybe take turns i think. An apologies.

In order for this lie james pretty dumb lie pretty dumb lie to tell i think we can all agree that we are establishing the pathological nature of his line which is not the thrust of the topic idea.

That you came up with though right farida. Okay fine establish that he's a liar but don't forget to answer the topic question though. My gosh what a mess i am. Um i'm gonna need like aspirin after this one which of you in my audience told me to react to this.

How could you do this to me. By the way if you have not yet subscribed to the channel please do so. Please like and subscribe to the channel simply because of the torture that you put me through. I'm kidding.

I appreciate y 'all. Well then you're blind.

He just took one of the guy's videos. Yeah. Let's tuck it in uh let's go back to the uh. We have one uh minute and 11 uh seconds left nine eight seconds. Well it doesn't sound like.

Okay as far as this he says that i i called jack saustek a liar. I i did and i and jack saustek sent me an email. He said you were pretty hard on me in that talk and i said jack i'd like to call you to apologize because i was wrong to do that.

I said give me your number. He gave me his number. I called him. We spoke about this. He said to me jim if you would join us in this origin of life research we would get this thing solved. We had a very why'd you say this was a nature totally made that up.

Because if you had spoken to jack saustek nobody made me apologize to him.

I offered him my apology let me show you the primary literature the journal nature and i apologized to him and you but you continue to call his work uh utterly bait. No what did you.

Call it ridiculous utterly ridiculous it is utterly ridiculous when he says he's going to have life in his lab in three to five years in 2014 and now he says i can't even make the rna.

Who cares you lied about this. Look the structures are. Oh no no that who who cares really i mean you.

Forget about the shouting and talking over each other. Isn't that a worthwhile piece of evidence to consider that an origin of life. Researcher made a claim that he would create life in his lab and then he backed away from that claim saying that he couldn't do it.

Don't you think that that actually intersects with the topic question. Oh but that doesn't matter guys because tour said something wrong and then he apologized about it later which by the way is not a good look for how does one somehow downplay the significance of the other thing.

I this is slide. You can speak.

To jack saustek he said to me jim that slide was not well done. That was a copy from another article in scientific america. No jack agrees with me. That was poorly done. There's no stereochemistry on that sugar when there's an article.

Okay i'm gonna call it close to this part of the session.

Uh let's move on. It's um dr tours um two minutes to ask a question. Okay my second question is uh let's also try to uh see if we can stick more to the science instead of diagrams. Oh i would.

Love to stick. That was my only prompt for the last. It's important to establish a liar.

Nucleotide Polymerization, RNA, and Prebiotic Chemistry

Polynucleotides you have to be able to make rna you have to be able to take this molecule and hook it together many many times to have a dimer of rna abbreviating the base this time as b.

Abbreviating the triphosphate as p3. God bless these guys that can sit through this and this not only can they understand this but it actually makes them passionate and excited. What you have.

To be able to do is show me chemistry. I'm asking you specifically for chemistry not a bunch of show me the chemistry not a bunch of peer-reviewed research reaction to go such that you get coupling between the three prime hydroxyl to this five prime site.