James Tour lies again, 3'

More James Tour

Following my chat with Bill Ludlow, and the resulting creationist spams of pain and outrage, I was going to next post on James Tour's lame whine about "homochiral" everything. But, this seems to be a more obvious next step.

In James Tour’s “letter to John West” where he tried to deflect his many lies and slanders, Tour flatteringly wrote;

“The superb work by Professor Sutherland shows the enormous intellectual prowess of some of the top synthetic chemists in the world, restricting themselves to the reagents that might be found on a prebiotic earth, and yet cleverly making some key intermediates and then finally to a racemic nucleotide. That intellectual effort is something that a mindless prebiotic earth would be lacking. Sutherland and his team should be commended for first rate synthetic work. I wish I were as good a synthetic chemist as is John Sutherland.”

We will see this is a 180 degree spin from Tour’s Disco’tute lie fest to 1,000 Baptist preachers.
Just after James Tour lied about, and slandered Nobelist Jack Szostak, he trash talked Cambridge University Professor John Sutherland.

46:54, Slide: Patel, B.H., Percivalle, C., Ritson, D.J., Duffy, C.D. and Sutherland, J.D., 2015. Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors ina cyanosulfidic protometabolism. Nature chemistry, 7(4), p. 301.


Tour's Commentary on his Lie Fest;
47:27
“He makes a little bit of it, and it is a bunch of junk.” “Then he says, we’ll just use synthetic organic techniques – real techniques – to make more – just to simplify handling procedures.”
47:37
“Come on, because you could only make a like a fraction of it and you wanted to carry it on but it was just a bunch of junk. It was just a peak in ah … “
47:46
It’s not real. And even with all your synthetic prowess … And these are just for intermediaries, not even the real compounds. (Next Slide) 

47:54 New Slide
48:54 New Slide
49:07 New slide

Tour posts a slide supposedly with Patel et al quoted on the slide, and follows “Then he (Sutherland) even goes so far as to say, “All the cellular subsystems could have arisen simultaneously through common chemistry.”

49:15
“That is crazy! Man! I’ll tell you, if you work in the area of nanotechnology you try to build systems, you take molecules to build into a system that functioned. He (Sutherland) says they, “could have arisen simultaneously through common chemistry?”

49:30
"That is a lie! And it is accepted in the best of journals! This is crazy!"

All he made was a couple of precursors and he is going into the assembly of all substance – Show me! If it could have happened, show me? He’ll never show you.”

So, James Tour keeps on lying even about how he lies. In his effort to save face from lying about Harvard Professor Jack Szostak, he lies about how he similarly treated Cambridge University Professor John Sutherland.

James Tour also has claimed to be an expert on the work of John Sutherland and sugars;  

“A professor of psychiatry from a Canadian university even wrote to me last week saying that I was wrong in my Dallas lecture since Sutherland has shown that those simple compounds can lead to the nucleotides, and accusing me of not being familiar with a 2012 paper by Sutherland.  Little did he know that I had extensively studied Sutherland’s work and critiqued it in 2016: http://inference-review.com/article/animadversions-of-a-synthetic-chemist . And that poor psychiatrist had been misled by Szostak to believe that all this chemistry is worked out and simply heat and light can work this magic. How misled even professors can become from these writings in Nature. The academy is led astray.”

The paper that James Tour linked to was “Animadversions of a Synthetic Chemist, Why is everyone here lying? — Fyodor Dostoevsky “ James Tour, Inference: International Review of Science May 19, 2016 in Volume 2, Issue 2. And, as the editors clearly stated, “Inference is not a peer-reviewed journal.”

And what were the papers co-authored by Sutherland that Tour had “extensively studied … and critiqued?”

Matthew Powner, Béatrice Gerland, and John Sutherland, “Synthesis of Activated Pyrimidine Ribonucleotides in Prebiotically Plausible Conditions,” Nature 459 (2009): 239–42.

http://hoffman.cm.utexas.edu/courses/nature_prebiotic_rna.pdf

Patel, B.H., Percivalle, C., Ritson, D.J., Duffy, C.D. and Sutherland, J.D., 2015. Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism. Nature chemistry, 7(4), p.301.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4568310/

These had nothing at all to do with “Prebiotic synthesis of simple sugars by photoredox systems chemistry” Ritson, D. and Sutherland, J.D., 2012 Nature chemistry, 4(11), p.895. That paper was the exact citation that Dr. Ali, "the poor misled professor of psychiatry", had suggested James Tour should read. And then in Tour’s self adulation, and self excuse, he goes on and on about Patel et al, 2015. Sugars are mentioned, but in the confused reading by James Tour, he is avoiding the real point of that paper. The extensive mapping of the chemical reactions in Patel (2015) was descriptive. It was not prescriptive.

I must conclude that this is a common thread through all of James Tour’s failed reading of Origin of Life research. In his religion driven mania he must see all things as a “Divine Plan,” with a Divine Being needing to interfere periodically. There is nothing merely descriptive “this is just what happened.”

For more of Tour's and John West's supporting lies exposed, see; "Prof. James Tour and the Disco’Tutes: Still Lying, Part 3

Prof. James Tour and the Disco’Tutes: Still Lying, Part 3.

This is the closing section of my reply to John West of the intelligent design creationist "Discovery Institute." I recommend starting with Part 1 if you really want the total range of new lies told by the creationist Disco'tute. There will be more technical reviews to follow about James Tour's failed objections to origin of life research.

Or, see Part II here.

Journalism degree winner John West claims that his 3 remaining lies are directly from James Tour. And James Tour claims these next set of lies are from his telephone call with Jack Szostak. The one where Tour apologized for lying that Nobel winner Jack Szostak was a liar. Tour doubles down implying Szostak too stupid to recognize simple chemistry.*1

 
“Those are not sugars!”

Here is what John West wrote as his point #1;

1. According to Hurd, Tour was lying when he criticized as scientifically inaccurate two figures in Jack Szostak’s article labeled “Simple sugars.” When I asked Tour about this criticism, he responded that Szostak himself conceded to him that these figures were inaccurate! Tour wrote me:

    “As listed, the sugars do not look like sugars. One needs to have the double bond shown to one of the oxygen atoms or they are not sugars. Shown are a diol and a triol. Even Jack, when he and I spoke on the phone, conceded that point. And he blamed the error on a staff artist from Scientific American, and the mistake was transcribed when the article was used by Nature.

So much for this supposed lie by Tour.”

I want to look a little closer at this lie by James Tour. The science lie is that these “stick figure” illustrations were not representative of simple sugars, and that these simple presentations of complex molecules are unusual, or inaccurate. Here is the illustration Tour insisted is a lie. I showed that these were simple sugars. Mostly Tour rants that this is a “lie,” and Jack Szostak is a liar. When he had to apologize, Tour still doubled down that it was still a lie he now called; “mistake,” “an error,” and  “simply incorrect.”

Here is the famous Krebs Cycle in two illustrations. The first is for a popular audience without any professional chemistry background. Note well that the atoms are colored dots, hydrogen atoms are not shown, and the chemical electron bonds are represented by simple lines.

Here is a still simplified, but more detailed example intended as a teaching aid for undergraduates. The different audience and the different details are obvious, and appropriate.

But, the bigger lie is that James Tour didn’t honestly report his conversation with Jack Szostak. I asked Prof. Szostak by email if he “admitted” to James Tour that the illustration was an error? And, if he had “blamed” illustrators for Scientific American, and Nature magazines? His reply was

Szostak to Hurd (May 17, 2019), “What I did was to explain the use of the simplified diagrams as a means of communicating the chemistry to a general audience (and note, even chemists by convention draw molecular structures without showing most hydrogen atoms).  At the time he appeared to have no problem accepting this explanation, but I guess it did not stick.”

I know that James Tour lied already about Jack Szostak, and that John West has lied about me. I’ll believe Prof. Jack Szostak over both of them.

To paraphrase John West, “So much for telling the truth by Tour.”

“Is this HCN?”

John West again journalizes,

“2. According to Hurd, Tour was lying when he questioned the scientific accuracy of two figures in Szostak’s article labeled “Cyanide derivatives.” Not so, says Tour, who responded to me:

    Either we fill in the hydrogen atoms or we show the pi bonds. But we cannot omit both. Moreover, the convention is that all heteroatoms should bear the hydrogen atoms. Only carbon can be devoid of hydrogen in the convention. But that is only to fill the valance states. (…blah blah, ... repeat … gh).

Once again, the charge that Tour was lying or incompetent disintegrates.”

What James Tour did say (and he and the Disco’tutes are still repeating to tens of thousands of people on their YouTube) is that the illustrated molecules labeled “cyanide derivatives” were not cyanide. He almost shouts, “That is not HCN! I don’t know that that is!”

The chemical formula for cyanide is HCN. The chemical formula for “cyanide derivatives” is not HCN. I wrote months ago that the simplified molecule sketches are CN2, or cyanonitrene on the left, and C3N, or cyanoethynyl on the right. James Tour failed to even correctly read the illustration title he is attacking. So, is he lying, or incompetent?

In favor of incompetence, Tour wrote in his self-justification about that illustration of cyanonitrene, and cyanoethynyl, "… then the latter of the two “Cyanide derivatives” could be cyanoethene (acrylonitrile) or cyanoethyne. The former could be H2N-C=NH or HN=C=NH or H2N-CN (all hydrogen atoms shown immediately tell us that the last of these three listed here is cyanonitrene)."

Gosh, I had said they were cyanonitrene, and cyanoethynyl. I guess that undergraduate organic chemistry class 48 years ago stuck better than I thought.

We just saw Jack Szostak’s comment about this style of illustration, and I know who I can believe. But, maybe it is incompetence.

“he could have at least used the right structure”

John West’s last try to salvage his "expert witness" is that the simplified illustration of a nucleotide is utterly mistaken.

“ 3. According to Hurd, Tour was lying as well when he claimed that the diagram labeled “RNA nucleotide” in Szostak’s article was inaccurate. Tour’s response to me: “it is not a nucleotide since it is devoid of any stereochemistry.” Again, the charge that Tour doesn’t understand basic chemistry seems to evaporate.”

As I wrote, and illustrated, “At 46:10 Tour starts to yap that the right most stick drawing is "not a nucleotide." From 46:10 to 46:20 Tour shouts "It is not the right structure, he could have at least used the right structure …" In fact it is cytosine bound to ribose and the phosphate to the ribose. This is RNA's nucleoside cytidine. It is directly and spontaneously formed in nature from the starting chemistry.  It is the “right structure.”

Compare the two side by side. 

I have not anymore to say about John West’s failed attempts to salvage James Tour. But, Jack Szostak does deserve a last word,

As I said in my original email to Jim, I was sad that such an excellent organic chemist was not willing to think about the problems of how life began on the early Earth.  If he would only approach the really interesting problems we are trying to solve with the same energy and creativity with which he approached the synthesis of his molecular race cars, he could actually make real contributions to a scientific understanding of the origin of life.  However, it looks like we will have to solve those interesting chemical problems without his help! 

*1 James Tour wrote in his self defense, "How disingenuous for Szostak to write “in the presence of UV light and phosphate, RNA nucleotides were formed.” Does Szostak himself appreciate the exactness required to conduct these syntheses? Likely not. Most biologists don’t. And they transmit their blissfulness to others."

 

James Tour makes some new lies in his self-aggrandizement and excuse froth, "Letter to John West" dated May 11, 2019. I took some time to expose them in; James Tour Lies Again, 3'

Prof. James Tour and the Disco’Tutes: Still Lying, Part 2.

Part 2
(see Part 1 here on my professional background in chemistry)

So my blog post in response to James Tour’s lying rant went on-line on April 29 this year, and the YouTube interview with Bill Ludlow followed on May 7. In just a few days from my blog, Tour was pushing that he had personally apologized to Jack Szostak and so all was well. The Disco’tute used their website to attack me on May 13 using what was a 10 page denial, and personal defense written by James Tour posted on-line. On May 18, they added a disclaimer of sorts to their YouTube. They basically said that Tour was “so sad" he kept calling senior faculty, and a Nobel Prize winner liars, but really he was correct about all the rest. There had been 78,889 views of the YouTube by May 17, and there have been tens of thousands more since then with all the same lies still being repeated. There was no retraction. Instead there was a counter attack with even more lies.

I learned that James Tour had the time to write his 10 page duck-and-dodge because he had actually been told I had seen through his obvious lies, and was preparing a detailed public response. He was told by Dr. Faizal Ali. My first introduction to this particular scam by James Tour was that Dr. Ali mentioned that there seemed 'problems' with Tour, and asked specifically if I could watch a short segment of a video. Dr. Ali has prepared his own article describing his role in all this, “A Chemist Who Thinks He Understands Biology Better Than Biologists.”  Basically, Tour’s reaction before I had posted anything anywhere was to attack Dr. Ali, and make unsubstantiated paranoid accusations and demands to his Dean of Medicine, the President of the U of Toronto and his VP of Human Resources, and copied to Tour's Rice University VP of Research that they act to stop this “extortion.” His assault against Dr. Ali made the following claim, "If I do not comply, there shall be some sort of career assassination upon me which Dr. Ali controls. Dr. Ali seems to hold the key to turn this on or off. That is extortion."
 [Ali  wrote to me, 7-12-19, “Yes, the words of advice were just to be a bit more courteous in tone when speaking with fellow academics.  I don't think they gave any mind at all to the accusations of "extortion", and I felt it best just not to mention all that in the post.  Water under the bridge.”]

Journalist (BA) and “Government Studies" (PhD), John West parsed Tour’s ‘It is not my fault screed' into an attack on me. I refuted his favorite line that I lacked the professional chemistry background to expose undergraduate level errors in Part 1 of this 3 part post.  We shall call that lie Prime I.  He then makes 5 numbered accusations that I somehow had failed to understand, or misrepresented po’ po’ baby James Tour. This will be the substance of following comments.

But, there is a Prime II lie told by John West, James Tour, and the anonymous keeper of the lies for the Disco’tute YouTube. And that is that James Tour was somehow surprised by the materials he himself had prepared on Jack Szostak for his entirely scripted talk before 1000 preachers. Utterly surprised, and shocked without any advance preparation that could have prepared his response, po’ po’ baby James never imagined that he was lying his ass off over a dozen times in just 3:45 minutes.  Really! Watch it again. OH! OH! and James Tour really was correct all along. What the Disco’tute YouTube hack wrote was, “Tour in his response apologizes for using the word "lying" with regard to Jack Szostak, but he goes on to explain in detail why his substantive criticisms of Szostak's article were correct.”

John West wrote, “Tour’s public talks sizzle, and his rollicking Dallas lecture was no exception.

At one point, Tour got a bit carried away while critiquing an article by Nobel laureate Jack Szostak, one of the world’s top origin of life researchers. Highlighting an inaccurate diagram in Szostak’s article, Tour made an off-the-cuff remark about Szostak, telling the audience that “he’s lying to you.”

He repeated that several times, but it is OK because he said he was sorry. Go look! The James Tour Lie Fest is still posted in full.  In fact it now has had 127,307 views today July 14, 2019. That is up to 48,418 more viewers that James Tour, and the Disco’tutes lied to since I exposed Tour for what he is. John West runs the Disco’tute, and the lies become his as well. James Tour’s talk was scripted. He had selected the target, he added the lecture slides, he had the lies down smooth.

In fact, John West has reinforced these lies, and even added some new ones. The first I referred to as Prime I, and II. There is even another subtle lie because John West scrambled how Tour lies were presented, and how I exposed them. He numbered these as #4, and #5. I wrote at the top of my remarks, “The Szostak article that Tour falsely claimed was "part of the primary literature" was a 2 1/2 page sketch published 9 May, 2018. It was not in the main section of Nature magazine, nor was it part of the "primary scientific literature." The Nature website makes this adamantly clear at the end of this short little intro to prebiotic sugar and the origin of life, quote, "This article is part of Innovations In The Biggest Questions In Science, an editorially independent supplement produced with the financial support of third parties."

John West denies my opening observation that James Tour stated at the very first that he was going to expose the frauds and lies “from the primary literature.” Go watch it! Tour started his lying attack on Jack Szostak at 43:08, by saying, “So- Let me show you the primary literature from 2018 in the journal Nature. This is our top journal! You want to see what Nature will publish in this area? None of us could get away with this, except origin of life researchers do!” John West repeats James Tour’s lie that this was the editorial, and peer reviewed content of Nature magazine.

That was of course another lie. The first lie is that the article was not “primary literature,” as we have already shown. The Prime II lie is that Tour is so surprised and overwhelmed by the moment he is forced to keep lying some more. But John West cannot even pretend he is not lying because he hid these bare facts at the bottom of his lie fest as his point #4, and #5 rather than honestly admitting they were the first lies uttered by James Tour in that segment, and the first I exposed. West lies writing on his fake #5, “At last, a fair point, ...” Even then he had to admit I was correct. John West tries to cover up this lie by his boy James writing, “At last, a fair point (sort of), which Tour concedes in his letter to me. But this is a quibble,” and, “So this particular complaint is much ado about nothing.”  

I think the liars “doth protest too much.”

So we have 3 false accusations left made by John West, #s 1,2,3. And remember John West claims he is merely reporting the self defense he received from James Tour. James Tour's 10 page whine added more basic undergraduate level errors, and misrepresentations.

When we looked at these they collapsed. Even undergraduate textbooks expose them. But in this example of creationist liars like John West and James Tour, I have the better support from Nobel Prize winner Jack Szostak himself.

More to follow in Part 3.