You are a cad.
What happened to the lovely (and brilliant) Mrs. Martin?
Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it: “Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.” Science mines ignorance. Mystery — that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand — is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do.
Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage. Worse, it threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect that creationism or “intelligent design theory” (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed. ID, by the way, is not a new form of creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.
It isn’t even safe for a scientist to express temporary doubt as a rhetorical device before going on to dispel it.
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” You will find this sentence of Charles Darwin quoted again and again by creationists. They never quote what follows. Darwin immediately went on to confound his initial incredulity. Others have built on his foundation, and the eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called “The fortyfold Path to Enlightenment” in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom.
The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is widely quoted as saying that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed”. Again, this was a rhetorical preliminary to explaining how the powerful illusion of design actually comes about by natural selection. The isolated quotation strips out the implied emphasis on “appear to”, leaving exactly what a simple-mindedly pious audience — in Kansas, for instance — wants to hear.
The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors. But such Telling Lies for God (the book title of the splendidly pugnacious Australian geologist Ian Plimer) is not the most serious problem. There is a more important point to be made, and it goes right to the philosophical heart of creationism.
The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?” If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”
Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s rejoicing in uncertainty. Today’s scientist in America dare not say: “Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I’ll have to go to the university library and take a look.” No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.”
I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.” Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore “gaps” in the fossil record.
Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and these are the famous “gaps”. Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a “gap”, the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet again the use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.
The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.
Richard Dawkins, FRS, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford University. His latest book is The Ancestor’s Tale
Just posting the obvious Ichy..
Beware the "obvious", it's often wrong.
If the 3rd human didn't come from the first two.. then current biology must be re-written..
Nope. You don't understand "current biology". Current biology has no problem whatsoever with that scenario.
Why don't you toodle off and actually learn something about current biology before you attempt to play "gotcha" games with it?
And if there WERE the first two.. where did the 2nd and 1st come from.?.
Same answer.
Obviously there had to be the first three.. else where did all the others(us) come from..
Actually, the fourth didn't have to come from the first three either.
A wise man once said, "never argue with a fool, bet him money". I'll bet you $100 that I can describe a scenario entirely consistent with "current biology" in which the first four modern humans did not originate from any of the other first modern humans. Accept this bet, then I'll describe the scenario to you. Then I'll tell you where you can mail the $100 to me.
Then perhaps you'll be less smug about ridiculing a subject you don't actually know enough about, and ideally this will be a valuable lesson for others of your ilk on these threads.
There are many stories in the big city, evolution is just one of them..
It's a "story" supported by mountains of evidence, 150+ years of research, which has passed countless verification tests and survived countless potential falsification tests.
Evolution(most versions of it) is a fairy tale for adults...
Only the way *you* tell it...
Guess "GOD" just made ((ME)) a critic of good story telling..
You're a legend in your own mind, obviously.
I pray things will be better paced for you this weekend and afterwards - you've been buried with work and could surely use a break, dear sister in Christ!
Thank you...
AT least you're not unobservant.. but probably a RINO...
Hey.... nobodys perfect..
If I had $100.00 for every time you pretended to speak on behalf of a wise man I'd own your goofy buns, fire you, then send you off to study glacial erratics with strict instructions to report with unparalled accuracy the location of every fossil you stumble upon while heaving the rocks.
But then, frogs don't have wings.
Post 946 by the good doctor.
Probability of deterministic mechanisms yielding complexity = 0.00.
Probablity of random mechanisms yielding complexity = 1.00.
Probability of chaotic mechanisms yielding complexity can be between 0 and 1 but they take an infinite time to do so.
I don't see Kolmogorov mentioned, and if it were mentioned, I'd like to see a "random" mechanism that only generated uncompressible strings.
Doubtless a comment from someone who would consider a George Foreman cooker purchased on eBay as the most valuable object on display at the Smithsonian.
Fact is, all things considered, I AM born every minute.
Was Cain a monkey?
You are a cad.
What happened to the lovely (and brilliant) Mrs. Martin?
incompressible as well.
Not French, it was a home-boy (Muslim) fanatic around 1380.
Alone.
Intelligent Design – unlike creationism – has no basis in theology at all. It does not specify the designer. The designer could be God, collective consciousness, or aliens.
Seems to me we ought to be debating the first sentence because, if we agree that Intelligent Design has no basis in theology at all, then we ought to be able to also agree to the rest of it since "no theology" means the designer is not stipulated.
No. Your logic is a fallacy in this form:
A not B; C not B; therefore C=A.
Wrong.
So, what we need to do is identify our questions. We've evidently agreed to at least the following:
Then we need to define our terms; the terms that require definition are the following:
Whether or not Intelligent Design has a basis in theology is part of the definition. More importantly, in order for panspermia or "collective consciousness" to be Intelligent Design hypotheses, then they must at minimum have design, and the design must also be intelligent.
That is the juncture of our disagreement.
If we resolve these, then we can move on to the third question (we can postpone the framing of it until that point in time).
So, the current step is to define our terms. Let's start with:
What is Intelligent Design? In other words, what makes a hypothesis an Intelligent Design hypothesis?
I will start by stating what is insufficient: Any proposed solution to any given objection to the modern synthesis theory of genetic evolution.
So, let's proceed from there. What is it that you think qualifies a hypothesis to be an Intelligent Design hypothesis?
The presence of whatever result the application of a given implement produces. If the implement is a hammer, then the evidence is the imprint of a hammer.
For that matter, what consitutes evidence of the application of intelligent design?
Well, the analogous evidence would be the presence of whatever result the application of a given implement of intelligent design produces.
And you base this fantasy on what thin shred of evidence (if any at all)?
Hey.... nobodys perfect..
From your failure to even acknowledge it, shall I take it you're not accepting my bet?
Why thank you. And unlike some people, I don't employ it as a disingenuous device.
And does not realize that the formula for pi was given by Dr Stochastic through his link on post 1107.
Thank you for the complete non sequitur. You add such fine red herrings to these discussions.
I posted that formula as a reminder that it was not a complex thing due to that formula as stated by the good doctor himself.
Yeah. Uh huh. Sure you did. Since that point was not in dispute by anyone, that looks amazingly like yet another red herring.
I then presented the formula for the solution of the needle problem (note it is a problem not an experiment).
Again, without making any attempt whatsoever to make a relevant point thereby in, you know, words. Red herring #3.
Imagined refutations notwithstanding, needles and lines yield pi just as the first formula does.
Gosh, really? By what process exactly? Please describe the process by which one can drop needles on lines and actually "yield pi" -- the exact irrational constant -- as opposed to a rational number which approximates it. We'll wait. Hint: I've already explained in excruciating detail why the needle twiddling fails to actually produce pi. One has to wonder whether the Mr. Confused didn't understand it, or is just pretending not to so that he won't have to admit that his attempted point fell on its face.
That is pretty clear from the solution.
You have a vivid imagination.
Thus a "random" mechanism yields a non-complex number using the definitions provided by the Doctor.
No, it doesn't, for reasons I've already described quite clearly. If you fantasize that it does, feel free to describe the exact process by which one can actually employ the random dropping of needles and produce the exact value of pi. We'll wait.
Review.
Waaaaaay ahead of you.
I'd like to see a "random" mechanism that only generated uncompressible strings.
A mechanism which "only generated uncompressible strings" is a self-contradiction (the reason why is left as an exercise for the reader), as well as yet another red herring. It must be spawning season for those red herrings, they're flying everywhere recently.
I don't have $100... but I wouldn't give you $100 if you Rino slapped George Bush...
I don't have $100...
But you were so *certain* that "current biology" could not support such a scenario, isn't your money safe if you take my bet? Aren't you sure to win the bet, since evolutionary biology is nothing but a "fairy tale" as you say? You were so sure of your position that you felt safe ridiculing the very notion that evolution could "kick start" a population of modern humans from one that contained no modern humans.
Please explain why you suddenly seem to be very concerned about losing.
Another failing of the pegleg is his knowledge of how probabilities are determined. They are not determined by trial and error. They are calculated. That is why Buffon's question has a solution. It is not a guess.
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
Let's see, nope, no guesses in there.
No stumping the pegleg on incompressible and "random", he's sharp as a tack, but he's kinda dense on irony.
I suppose because one can plug a mathematical formula that exactly yields pi into an equation and do mathematically meaningful things with it there, whereby you can't do that with the analog pi because it can only be as good as the actual probability experiments you carry out. Dropping your needle over and over is analogous to cranking out digits of pi.
Let me demonstrate how sure I am of creationist quote-mining and hogwash: I haven't even looked at any issues of Science yet, but I'll bet you $1,000 right now that the full passage you have in quotes does not actually appear in any 1995 Science magazine word-for-word as you have it written above. Please accept my bet. Go for it.
Are you as sure of the creationists' honesty and competence as I am of their dishonesty and incompetence? If so, take a stab at the $1,000.
Most textbooks still use the Miller experiments as a validation of the theory as the most likely beginning of life on earth.
No they don't. Please don't repeat lies.
Do you know why?
Do I know why they mention the Miller-Urey experiment (albeit not as "validation" as you falsely claim)? Yes, because it's still a seminal experiment.
Here, try learning something before you spout any more of the usual creationist falsehoods:
The experiment itself
The understanding of the origin of life was largely speculative until the 1920s, when Oparin and Haldane, working independently, proposed a theoretical model for "chemical evolution." The Oparin-Haldane model suggested that under the strongly reducing conditions theorized to have been present in the atmosphere of the early earth (between 4.0 and 3.5 billion years ago), inorganic molecules would spontaneously form organic molecules (simple sugars and amino acids). In 1953, Stanley Miller, along with his graduate advisor Harold Urey, tested this hypothesis by constructing an apparatus that simulated the Oparin-Haldane "early earth." When a gas mixture based on predictions of the early atmosphere was heated and given an electrical charge, organic compounds were formed (Miller, 1953; Miller and Urey, 1959). Thus, the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated how some biological molecules, such as simple amino acids, could have arisen abiotically, that is through non-biological processes, under conditions thought to be similar to those of the early earth. This experiment provided the structure for later research into the origin of life. Despite many revisions and additions, the Oparin-Haldane scenario remains part of the model in use today. The Miller-Urey experiment is simply a part of the experimental program produced by this paradigm.
Wells boils off
Wells says that the Miller-Urey experiment should not be taught because the experiment used an atmospheric composition that is now known to be incorrect. Wells contends that textbooks don't discuss how the early atmosphere was probably different from the atmosphere hypothesized in the original experiment. Wells then claims that the actual atmosphere of the early earth makes the Miller-Urey type of chemical synthesis impossible, and asserts that the experiment does not work when an updated atmosphere is used. Therefore, textbooks should either discuss the experiment as an historically interesting yet flawed exercise or not discuss it at all. Wells concludes by saying that textbooks should replace their discussions of the Miller-Urey experiment with an "extensive discussion" of all the problems facing research into the origin of life.
These allegations might seem serious; however, Wells's knowledge of prebiotic chemistry is seriously flawed. First, Wells's claim that researchers are ignoring the new atmospheric data, and that experiments like the Miller-Urey experiment fail when the atmospheric composition reflects current theories, is simply false. The current literature shows that scientists working on the origin and early evolution of life are well aware of the current theories of the earth's early atmosphere and have found that the revisions have little effect on the results of various experiments in biochemical synthesis. Despite Wells's claims to the contrary, new experiments since the Miller-Urey ones have achieved similar results using various corrected atmospheric compositions (Figure 1; Rode, 1999; Hanic et al., 2000). Further, although some authors have argued that electrical energy might not have efficiently produced organic molecules in the earth's early atmosphere, other energy sources such as cosmic radiation (e.g., Kobayashi et al., 1998), high temperature impact events (e.g., Miyakawa et al., 2000), and even the action of waves on a beach (Commeyras, et al., 2002) would have been quite effective.
Even if Wells had been correct about the Miller-Urey experiment, he does not explain that our theories about the origin of organic "building blocks" do not depend on that experiment alone (Orgel, 1998a). There are other sources for organic "building blocks," such as meteorites, comets, and hydrothermal vents. All of these alternate sources for organic materials and their synthesis are extensively discussed in the literature about the origin of life, a literature that Wells does not acknowledge. In fact, what is most striking about Wells's extensive reference list is the literature that he has left out. Wells does not mention extraterrestrial sources of organic molecules, which have been widely discussed in the literature since 1961 (see Oró, 1961; Whittet, 1997; Irvine, 1998). Wells apparently missed the vast body of literature on organic compounds in comets (e.g. Oró, 1961; Anders, 1989; Irvine, 1998), carbonaceous meteorites (e.g. Kaplan et al., 1963; Hayes, 1967; Chang, 1994; Maurette, 1998; Cooper et al., 2001), and conditions conducive to the formation of organic compounds that exist in interstellar dust clouds ( Whittet, 1997).
Wells also fails to cite the scientific literature on other terrestrial conditions under which organic compounds could have formed. These non-atmospheric sources include the synthesis of organic compounds in a reducing ocean (e.g., Chang, 1994), at hydrothermal vents (e.g., Andersson, 1999; Ogata et al., 2000), and in volcanic aquifers (Washington, 2000). A cursory review of the literature finds more than 40 papers on terrestrial prebiotic chemical synthesis published since 1997 in the journal Origins of life and the evolution of the biosphere alone. Contrary to Wells's presentation, there appears to be no shortage of potential sources for organic "building blocks" on the early earth.
Instead of discussing this literature, Wells raises a false "controversy" about the low amount of free oxygen in the early atmosphere. Claiming that this precludes the spontaneous origin of life, he concludes that "[d]ogma had taken the place of empirical science" (Wells 2000:18). In truth, nearly all researchers who work on the early atmosphere hold that oxygen was essentially absent during the period in which life originated (Copley, 2001) and therefore oxygen could not have played a role in preventing chemical synthesis. This conclusion is based on many sources of data, not "dogma." Sources of data include fluvial uraninite sand deposits (Rasmussen and Buick, 1999) and banded iron formations (Nunn, 1998; Copley, 2001), which could not have been deposited under oxidizing conditions. Wells also neglects the data from paleosols (ancient soils) which, because they form at the atmosphere-ground interface, are an excellent source to determine atmospheric composition (Holland, 1994). Reduced paleosols suggest that oxygen levels were very low before 2.1 billion years ago (Rye and Holland, 1998). There are also data from mantle chemistry that suggest that oxygen was essentially absent from the earliest atmosphere (Kump et al. 2001). Wells misrepresents the debate as over whether oxygen levels were 5/100 of 1%, which Wells calls "low," or 45/100 of 1%, which Wells calls "significant." But the controversy is really over why it took so long for oxygen levels to start to rise. Current data show that oxygen levels did not start to rise significantly until nearly 1.5 billion years after life originated (Rye and Holland, 1998; Copley, 2001). Wells strategically fails to clarify what he means by "early" when he discusses the amount of oxygen in the "early" atmosphere. In his discussion he cites research about the chemistry of the atmosphere without distinguishing whether the authors are referring to times before, during, or after the period when life is thought to have originated. Nearly all of the papers he cites deal with oxygen levels after 3.0 billion years ago. They are irrelevant, as chemical data suggest that life arose 3.8 billion years ago (Chang, 1994; Orgel, 1998b), well before there was enough free oxygen in the earth's atmosphere to prevent Miller-Urey-type chemical synthesis.
Finally, the Miller-Urey experiment tells us nothing about the other stages in the origin of life, including the formation of a simple genetic code (PNA or "peptide"-based codes and RNA-based codes) or the origin of cellular membranes (liposomes), some of which are discussed in all the textbooks that Wells reviewed. The Miller-Urey experiment only showed one possible route by which the basic components necessary for the origin of life could have been created, not how life came to be. Other theories have been proposed to bridge the gap between the organic "building blocks" and life. The "liposome" theory deals with the origin of cellular membranes, the RNA-world hypothesis deals with the origin of a simple genetic code, and the PNA (peptide-based genetics) theory proposes an even simpler potential genetic code (Rode, 1999). Wells doesn't really mention any of this except to suggest that the "RNA world" hypothesis was proposed to "rescue" the Miller-Urey experiment. No one familiar with the field or the evidence could make such a fatuous and inaccurate statement. The Miller-Urey experiment is not relevant to the RNA world, because RNA was constructed from organic "building blocks" irrespective of how those compounds came into existence (Zubay and Mui, 2001). The evolution of RNA is a wholly different chapter in the story of the origin of life, one to which the validity of the Miller-Urey experiment is irrelevant.
What the textbooks say
All of the textbooks reviewed contain a section on the Miller-Urey experiment. This is not surprising given the experiment's historic role in the understanding of the origin of life. The experiment is usually discussed over a couple of paragraphs (see Figure 2), a small proportion (roughly 20%) of the total discussion of the origin and early evolution of life. Commonly, the first paragraph discusses the Oparin-Haldane scenario, and then a second outlines the Miller-Urey test of that scenario. All textbooks contain either a drawing or a picture of the experimental apparatus and state that it was used to demonstrate that some complex organic molecules (e.g., simple sugars and amino acids, frequently called "building blocks") could have formed spontaneously in the atmosphere of the early earth. Textbooks vary in their descriptions of the atmospheric composition of the early earth. Five books present the strongly reducing atmosphere of the Miller-Urey experiment, whereas the other five mention that the current geochemical evidence points to a slightly reducing atmosphere. All textbooks state that oxygen was essentially absent during the period in which life arose. Four textbooks mention that the experiment has been repeated successfully under updated conditions. Three textbooks also mention the possibility of organic molecules arriving from space or forming at deep-sea hydrothermal vents (Figure 2). No textbook claims that these experiments conclusively show how life originated; and all textbooks state that the results of these experiments are tentative.
It is true that some textbooks do not mention that our knowledge of the composition of the atmosphere has changed. However, this does not mean that textbooks are "misleading" students, because there is more to the origin of life than just the Miller-Urey experiment. Most textbooks already discuss this fact. The textbooks reviewed treat the origin of life with varying levels of detail and length in "Origin of life" or "History of life" chapters. These chapters are from 6 to 24 pages in length. In this relatively short space, it is hard for a textbook, particularly for an introductory class like high school biology, to address all of the details and intricacies of origin-of-life research that Wells seems to demand. Nearly all texts begin their origin of life sections with a brief description of the origin of the universe and the solar system; a couple of books use a discussion of Pasteur and spontaneous generation instead (and one discusses both). Two textbooks discuss how life might be defined. Nearly all textbooks open their discussion of the origin of life with qualifications about how the study of the origin of life is largely hypothetical and that there is much about it that we do not know.
Wells's evaluation
As we will see in his treatment of the other "icons," Wells's criteria for judging textbooks stack the deck against them, ensuring failure. No textbook receives better than a D for this "icon" in Wells's evaluation, and 6 of the 10 receive an F. This is largely a result of the construction of the grading criteria. Under Wells's criteria (Wells 2000:251-252), any textbook containing a picture of the Miller-Urey apparatus could receive no better than a C, unless the caption of the picture explicitly says that the experiment is irrelevant, in which case the book would receive a B. Therefore, the use of a picture is the major deciding factor on which Wells evaluated the books, for it decides the grade irrespective of the information contained in the text! A grade of D is given even if the text explicitly points out that the experiment used an incorrect atmosphere, as long as it shows a picture. Wells pillories Miller and Levine for exactly that, complaining that they bury the correction in the text. This is absurd: almost all textbooks contain pictures of experimental apparatus for any experiment they discuss. It is the text that is important pedagogically, not the pictures. Wells's criteria would require that even the intelligent design "textbook" Of Pandas and People would receive a C for its treatment of the Miller-Urey experiment.
In order to receive an A, a textbook must first omit the picture of the Miller-Urey apparatus (or state explicitly in the caption that it was a failure), discuss the experiment, but then state that it is irrelevant to the origin of life. This type of textbook would be not only scientifically inaccurate but pedagogically deficient.
Why we should still teach Miller-Urey
The Miller-Urey experiment represents one of the research programs spawned by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Even though details of our model for the origin of life have changed, this has not affected the basic scenario of Oparin-Haldane. The first stage in the origin of life was chemical evolution. This involves the formation of organic compounds from inorganic molecules already present in the atmosphere and in the water of the early earth. This spontaneous organization of chemicals was spawned by some external energy source. Lightning (as Oparin and Haldane thought), proton radiation, ultraviolet radiation, and geothermal or impact-generated heat are all possibilities.
The Miller-Urey experiment represents a major advance in the study of the origin of life. In fact, it marks the beginning of experimental research into the origin of life. Before Miller-Urey, the study of the origin of life was merely theoretical. With the advent of "spark experiments" such as Miller conducted, our understanding of the origin of life gained its first experimental program. Therefore, the Miller-Urey experiment is important from an historical perspective alone. Presenting history is good pedagogy because students understand scientific theories better through narratives. The importance of the experiment is more than just historical, however. The apparatus Miller and Urey designed became the basis for many subsequent "spark experiments" and laid a groundwork that is still in use today. Thus it is also a good teaching example because it shows how experimental science works. It teaches students how scientists use experiments to test ideas about prehistoric, unobserved events such as the origin of life. It is also an interesting experiment that is simple enough for most students to grasp. It tested a hypothesis, was reproduced by other researchers, and provided new information that led to the advancement of scientific understanding of the origin of life. This is the kind of "good science" that we want to teach students.
Finally, the Miller-Urey experiment should still be taught because the basic results are still valid. The experiments show that organic molecules can form under abiotic conditions. Later experiments have used more accurate atmospheric compositions and achieved similar results. Even though origin-of-life research has moved beyond Miller and Urey, their experiments should be taught. We still teach Newton even though we have moved beyond his work in our knowledge of planetary mechanics. Regardless of whether any of our current theories about the origin of life turn out to be completely accurate, we currently have models for the processes and a research program that works at testing the models.
How textbooks could improve their presentations of the origin of life
Textbooks can always improve discussions of their topics with more up-to-date information. Textbooks that have not already done so should explicitly correct the estimate of atmospheric composition, and accompany the Miller-Urey experiment with a clarification of the fact that the corrected atmospheres yield similar results. Further, the wealth of new data on extraterrestrial and hydrothermal sources of biological material should be discussed. Finally, textbooks ideally should expand their discussions of other stages in the origin of life to include PNA and some of the newer research on self-replicating proteins. Wells, however, does not suggest that textbooks should correct the presentation of the origin of life. Rather, he wants textbooks to present this "icon" and then denigrate it, in order to reduce the confidence of students in the possibility that scientific research can ever establish a plausible explanation for the origin of life or anything else for that matter. If Wells's recommendations are followed, students will be taught that because one experiment is not completely accurate (albeit in hindsight), everything else is wrong as well. This is not good science or science teaching.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.