Generally Rational said:
Despite the objections of others, some theories are more plausible than others and believing that all are equally false is as wrong as that all are equally true.
Given my background, I'm well aware of this. I'm also well aware of the other arguments attempting to explain this stuff. Please see Valentine's "On the Origin of the Phyla" for an overview of the most well-supported (word of warning: this book is the second-thickest academic work I own). I agree that not all theories are identical. However, one CAN see trends through history--and it's trivial to demonstrate that each area of research tends to think that their area provides The Answer to big questions in evolution. It's also trivial--once you examine the field as a whole--to demonstrate the flaws in each such argument. When we first discovered genetics folks spoke about how this would give an objective way to discuss evolution, and that it would answer all the big questions! Then we actually worked with genetics, and found that while it's very, very, VERY useful, it does not, in fact, cover the whole of evolutionary biology.
What you have to ask yourself is, is this guy the one who gets it right when everyone else failed? He may be; the fact that no one has succeeded doesn't prove it's impossible. But it does mean that we should approach this with the mindset of "How is he wrong?" rather than "Is he right?" No, this is not an insult to him--this is how science works. If we fail to figure out how he's wrong we will at least have established the limits of the usefulness of his arguments. The first one we should be asking is "Where is the evidence?" And by that I mean where are the fossils? ANY statement about past life MUST come with paleontological evidence, otherwise it's speculation. There are too many options, too many potential ways things could have happened (see Gould's comments on contingency or literally anyone's work on morphospace). Looking at modern stuff can tell you how the SURVIVORS lived, but especially when dealing with Hadean stuff we must always question whether the survivors survived because they were all that was there, or because they out-competed some other stuff to such an extent that that other stuff no longer exists.
"Multidisciplinary" isn't a magical incantation that makes something valid; evolutionary biology is inherently multidisciplinary. You need to be well-versed in biology, ecology, chemistry (organic and in), statistics, and a few other fields (understand that each includes a few HUNDRED sub-fields, any one of which may become important in a study). Paleontology is even more so, to the point where programs I'm familiar with treat paleontology as a double major (mine did). If the research wasn't multidisciplinary we could dismiss it out of hand; it wouldn't rise to the level of a decent bit of crackpottery.
Finally, if you want to call me out, call me out. If not, speak more clearly. I'm perfectly willing to discuss this, even in a heated fashion; I'm a big boy, and can both defend my arguments and accept when I'm wrong (I've proven myself wrong so often that I'm used to the process). I've little use for linguistic trickery intended to allow you to say "I never said that!!!" however.
