Re: The El Tajon situation [was Judge Jones sided]

Ted wrote:

> (1) Pim, my very strong impression is that for 150 years (longer,
> actually,
> these debates predate Darwin), there has been serious disagreement
> (including very heated debate at some times and places) among the
> experts
> themselves, about how precisely to interpret the fossil record:
> continuity
> vs discontinuity? gradualism vs catastrophism or quasi-catastrophism
> (here I
> think recently of Gould and Eldredge)? full randomness (Gould) or
> front-loaded order (Conway Morris)?

However, none of these issues brings into question common descent, and
that is the core issue.
Also, the modern debates do not bear much resemblance to ones of the
last century. The debates
today focus on the relative importance of various known and
demonstrated evolutionary mechanisms
at different time scales. The debate is within the strongly supported
framework of common descent.
Common descent itself is not the topic of any serious debate.

> These questions are not resolved today,
> they've been on the table for a long time. If Phil Johnson has doubts
> about
> the standard answers for religious reasons, he's entitled to them. But
> there are lots of secular conversations one can discuss that also
> raise some
> of the same questions. Denton's book, one of the two that inspired
> Johnson
> to write Darwin on Trial (the other one was Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker)
> is a
> completely secular book--are we to say that Denton's misgivings (or
> those of
> Conway Morris or Gould) about the standard picture are just out of
> bounds,
> b/c they give succor to creationists?

But, Denton's first book (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis) is filled with
misleading and simply false assertions
and conclusions. These errors have been pointed out by many. Denton's
arguments against common descent
in that book are invalid.

>
> (2) I don't know, Pim, why is the origin of life so often talked
> about--in
> terms of Miller's experiments and the like--in biology texts? Darwin
> of
> course begged off on this question, quite wisely, but many scienitsts
> don't
> beg off, they believe that chemical evolution of some sort took place.
> And
> they often believe this for a priori reasons that amount IMO to
> religious
> convictions. Oparin was a lovely example of this very point, about
> which he
> was quite explicit.

The origin of life is a very interesting and challenging area of
research. It is also one that has advanced far beyond
the work of Miller and Oparin. I was privileged to attend a Gordon
Conference on the Origin of Life last January, and
I was amazed at how far research had progressed in addressing some
previously seemingly intractable problems
(such as homochirality). My point here is that the science of the
origin of life is advancing apace. It is not at all static
  or unproductive.

Also, the validity of biological evolution (common descent) is not at
all tied to the successful solution of the origin of life.
It is entirely reasonable given our current state of knowledge (both
positive and negative) that a very plausible solution
will be found to the origin of life. However, even if no scientific
solution is ever found to the origin of life, that can in no
way impact the vast amount of evidence that continues to accumulate in
support of common descent.

Keith

Keith B. Miller
Research Assistant Professor
Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
785-532-2250
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
Received on Wed Jan 11 21:50:32 2006