Excerpts from Ellington's t.o. essay on abiogenesis.
"Despite the fact that it is at best intellectually cowardly and at worst a reanimation of vitalism, evolution and abiogenesis should be separated. We can happily teach evolution in the schools, back up our teaching with a grab-bag of supporting evidence that ranges from rocks to macaques, and thoroughly embarrass any school board, legislature, or appellate court that dares say 'boo.'"
Sounds very much like he is taking a political stance here, not a scientific one. Hence his claim that abiogenesis is not a fact should be taken with a grain of salt.
"At some point abiogenesis will rule. But right now we cannot point to a single mechanism that defines the origin of life."
Exactly what I said in my response to Brian, assuming that you define abiogenesis as "the origin of life" (whatever that means). Sounds like Ellington and I agree more closely than I had first thought (it has been a year since I read this).
"In any case, in the meantime we should beware false prophets. If we don't know how abiogenesis truly occurred, then why should we bother to argue strenuously for it?"
Ah, yes, I spoke too soon; I forgot this little gem. It has always fascinated me that a scientist of his caliber would actually say something like this. That would be like me saying we shouldn't discuss protein or DNA sequences as evidence of phylogenetic relationships because there is some uncertainty over the molecular clock hypothesis.
"All the RNA world arguments really tell us is that it is all even more complex than we originally thought."
Again, exactly what I said in my reply to Brian. I have no argument with the rest of his essay; with a few reservations I thought then, and I still think now, that it was an excellent editorial, even if I disagreed with his overall point.
Kevin L. O'Brien