To: All Msg #271, May0593 12:42PM Subject: Teaching macroevolution (sic) Bill Rawlins (wpr

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: L.A. Moran To: All Msg #271, May-05-93 12:42PM Subject: Teaching macroevolution (sic) Organization: UTCC Public Access From: lamoran@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) Message-ID: Newsgroups: talk.origins Bill Rawlins (wpr@atlanta.dg.com) has written, "Science has only speculation. So, why, I asked, is the Miller-Urey experiment put into most biology textbooks claiming to explain the origin of amino acids, and later down-the-line, DNA? ... My objection here is not so much the experiment as it is to wasting time teaching speculation. AND, having reviewed many of these texts, and references to speculation of this sort, THE AUTHORS GENERALLY GLAZE OVER AND/OR DO NOT MENTION THE SPECULATION INVOLVED, MAKING IT APPEAR TO THE TYPICAL READER THAT SUCH SPECULATIONS ARE FACTS. This is called "distortion"." This is a serious charge so I decided to investigate by examining the leading textbooks of introductory biology (note that these are the most popular and widely read textbooks - I can't vouch for more obscure works). The following quotes demonstrate conclusively, in my mind, that these textbooks writers are fully aware of the distinction between fact and speculation. It is simply not true that our students are being taught that abiogenesis is a proven fact. I challenge Bill Rawlins to support his accusation or withdraw it. -------------------------------------- Campbell, Neil A. in BIOLOGY 2nd ed. Benjamin/Cummings, 1993 "Historical study of any sort is an inexact discipline, dependent as it is on the preservation, reliability, and interpretation of past records. The fossil record of past life is generally less and less complete the farther into the past we delve. Fortunately, each organism carries traces of its evolutionary history in its molecules, metabolism, and anatomy. As we saw in Unit Four, such traces are clues to the past that augment the fossil record, much as similarities and differences between extant cultures help social scientists understand historical relationships between the cultures. Still, the evolutionary episodes of greatest antiquity are generally the most obscure. This chapter is the most speculative of the unit, for its main subject is the origin of life on a young Earth, and no fossil record of that seminal episode exists. The chapter sets the stage by briefly discussing the origin and early existence of the Earth, in keeping with the theme of the intertwining of geological and biologial evolution, and then describes theories of how natural processes on the youthful planet could have created life." from the introduction to Chapter 24 "Early Earth and the Origin of Life" p.510 -------------------------------------- Raven, Peter H. and Johnson, George B. in BIOLOGY 2nd ed. Times Mirror/ Mosby College Publishing, St. Louis 1989 (I don't have the 3rd ed. on hand.) "The question of the origin of life is not simple. It is not possible to go back in time and watch how life originated; nor are there any witnesses. There is testimony, in the rocks of the earth, but it is not easily read, and often this record is silent on issues crying out for answers. Perhaps the most fundamental of these issues is the nature of the agency or force that led to the appearance of the first living organisms on earth - the creation of life. There are, in principle, at least four possibilities: 1. An unknowable agency. The first life-forms may have possessed genetic systems very different from those characteristic of the organisms we know now, and they might even have lacked cellular organization. What we think of as 'life' may be a secondary stage of some earlier process, about whose origins we can learn nothing because no trace remains. 2. Natural outside agency. Life may not have originated on earth at all, but instead may have been carried to it, perhaps as an extraterrestrial infection of spores originating on a planet of a distant star. How life came to exist on that planet is not a question we can soon hope to answer. 3. Supernatural outside agency. Life-forms may have been put on earth by supernatural or divine forces. This viewpoint, common to most religions, is the oldest hypothesis and the most widely accepted. 4. Evolution. Life may have evolved from inanimate matter, associations of molecules achieving ever-greater degrees of complexity. In this view, the force leading to life was selection; changes in molecules that increased their stability also caused them to persist longer. In this book we deal only with the fourth possibility, attempting to understand whether the forces of evolution could have led to the origin of life and, if so, how the process might have occurred. This is not to say that the fourth possibility is definitely the correct one. Any one of the four possibilities might be true. Nor does the fourth possibility exclude religion: a devine agency might have acted via evolution. Rather, we are limiting the scope of our inquiry to scientific matters. Of the four possibilities, only the fourth permits testable hypotheses to be constructed ad so provides the only *scientific* explanation, that is, one which could potentially be disproven by experiment, by obtaining and analyzing information." from Chapter 4, The Origin and Early History of Life p.63 -------------------------------------- Purves, William K., Orians, Gordon H. and Heller, H. Craig LIFE, THE SCIENCE OF BIOLOGY 3rd ed. Sinauer Associates/W. H. Freeman, New York 1992 "Today there is a substantial body of information on which to base plausible theories on the origins of life on Earth. The preserved remains of many early organisms have been found and described, and a number of laboratory experiments have studied chemical reactions under conditions similar to those believed to have prevailed on the early Earth. We know that all organisms have very similar basic cellular metabolic pathways. This strongly suggests that all living organisms are descendants of a single common ancestor. This does not imply that life originated only once, but it does suggest that only one of these origins led to all successful lineages of organisms. We will first examine the evidence, and then explore its implications for the ways life may have originated. [four pages of evidence and theory deleted] The fact that we cannot clearly choose among such strikingly different theories indicates how much is yet to be learned. On the other hand, the fact that there are such theories and that we can test at least parts of them shows we have made progress in our attempts to understand the origins of life." form Chapter 17, Origins pp. 387 and 390 -------------------------------------- Curtis, Helena and Barnes, N. Sue BIOLOGY 5th ed. Worth Publishers Inc. New York "Until very recently, the earliest fossil organisms were a mere 600 million years old, and for a long time after publication of 'The Origin of Species', biologists regarded the earliest events in the history of life as chapters that would probably remain forever closed to scientific investigation. Two developments, however, have greatly improved our long-distance vision. The first was the formulation of a testable hypothesis about events preceding life's origins. This hypothesis generated questions for which answers could be sought experimentally. The results of the initial experiments led to the formulation of further hypotheses and to additional experiments, a process that continues today as scientists in many laboratories explore the question of life's origins. The second development was the discovery of fossilized cells more than 3 billion years old. [description of Oparin's and Miller's experiments] These experiments have not proved that such organic compounds were formed spontaneoulsy on the primitive earth, only that they could have formed. The accumulated evidence is nevertheless, very great, and most biochemists now believe that, given the conditions existing on the young earth, chemical reactions producing amino acids, nucleotides, and other organic molecules were inevitable." from Chapter 4, pp. 85 and 87 -------------------------------------- Here is what I wrote in PRINCIPLES OF BIOCHEMISTRY, Horton, R.H., Moran, L.A., Ochs, R.S., Rawn, J.D. and Scrimgeour, K.G. Neil Patterson Publishers/ Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs 1993. "Gradually, populations of similar organisms diverge from each other and new species evolve. Biological evolution can be traced through the fossil record or by directly comparing the sequences of genes and proteins. These observations suggest that all of the millions of species that exist today have descended from a single ancestor that lived several billion years ago. This ancient ancestral cell was undoubtedly capable of glycolysis (the breakdown of glucose) and many of the other fundamental biochemical processes that are common to all cells. It could synthesize amino acids and lipids and almost certainly used ATP as the fundamental unit of energy. It used the same genetic code that we find in its modern descendants. How the ancestral cell evolved from simpler organsims is an unsolved problem. The origin of life itself, an event that ocurred more than three billion years ago, is the subject of much speculation." from Chapter 1, p.24 I hope that t.o. readers will find this helpful in refuting another of the spurious charges of the anti-evolutionists. Laurence A. Moran (Larry)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank