Does the Original Theory of Evolution say anything about origin of life?

[Skwim]

how about the french biologist G. de Buffon of the 1700's? or J de Lamark who was the first to argue forcefully for evolution and to propose a mechanism by which it might occur?

And then there is Darwins contemporary Alfred Russel Wallace?

The default "theory of evolution" here on RF has always been either the one currently employed by science (yes, I'm aware there are minor differences of opinion on some points among scientists) OR the one Darwin put forth. That you want to quibble over this is interesting and may make for a stimulating thread of its own, but I think Darwin's theory is what first springs to mind in reading the OP.


Edited to acknowledge that atanu has already confirmed my explanation.

 

[Nepenthe]

Yes. It was generally assumed that God directly created living things in their current form (special creation) only a few thousand years ago.
Darwin wrote in his book "life was breathed into a few living things by God"

im making no assertions.

it was taken as a matter of fact that God created the first living creatures. its even stated by Darwin towards the end of his book.

You're a bit off. In Darwin's notebook from 1837 he originally wrote:

"Astronomers might formerly have said that God foreordered each planet to move in its particular destiny. In the same manner God orders each animal created with certain forms in certain countries; but how much more simple and sublime [a]power—let attraction act according to certain law, such are inevitable consequences—let animals be created, then by the fixed laws of generation, such will be their successors."

Then later revised in his notes in 1842:

"...being originally breathed into matter under one or a few forms, and that whilst this our planet has gone circling on according to fixed laws, and land and water, in a cycle of change, have gone on replacing each other, that from so simple an origin, through the process of gradual selection of infinitesimal changes, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been evolved."

Then in an essay dated 1844 he introduces the "Creator":

"It accords with what we know of the laws impressed by the Creator on matter that the production and extinction of forms should, like the birth and death of individuals, be the result of secondary means. It is derogatory that the Creator of countless Universes should have made by individuals His will the myriads of creeping parasites and worms, which since the earliest dawn of life have swarmed over the land and in the depths of the ocean."

But in the 1st edition of On the Origin of Species (1859) he omitted any reference to a Creator but included the mytho-poetic use of “breathed”:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

The “by the Creator” part was added in the second edition simply to appease the outrage of offended clergy. Darwin later explained why he tacked on the “by the Creator” phrase in a letter to Joseph Hooker dated march 29, 1863:

“I have long since regretted that I truckled to public opinion and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant ‘appeared’ by some wholly unknown process.” [emphasis mine]

Darwin was vague on the origins of life because science had yet to offer any substantial hypotheses on abiogenesis at the time. When Darwin did touch upon it he simply used Biblically poetic terms he was familiar with from his years as a devout student. In fact, later in that letter to Dr. Hooker Darwin added, "It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter."

He was a brilliant scientist who knew his limitations and refused to extrapolate any conclusions without evidence to back it up.

 

[Erebus]

I've never understood why more creationists (not necessary YEC creationists) don't accept evolution? Surely a god that can consciously create something so intriguing and multifaceted is more interesting and impressive than a god who creates static creatures.

 

[Pegg]

The default "theory of evolution" here on RF has always been either the one currently employed by science (yes, I'm aware there are minor differences of opinion on some points among scientists) OR the one Darwin put forth. That you want to quibble over this is interesting and may make for a stimulating thread of its own, but I think Darwin's theory is what first springs to mind in reading the OP.


Edited to acknowledge that atanu has already confirmed my explanation.

the op does ask about the 'original theory'

i know most people think Darwin was its originator and this is why they go straight for his explanation but as a creationist, i always look at things from the beginning

 

[Pegg]

I've never understood why more creationists (not necessary YEC creationists) don't accept evolution? Surely a god that can consciously create something so intriguing and multifaceted is more interesting and impressive than a god who creates static creatures.

creatures ARE static

they evolve into a great variety within their family group.

 

[Skwim]

creatures ARE static

In the immediate sense, yes they are.

they evolve into a great variety within their family group.

Yup. Creating new species, new genera, and sometimes even new families and such.

 

[atanu]

Darwin later explained why he tacked on the “by the Creator” phrase in a letter to Joseph Hooker dated march 29, 1863:

“I have long since regretted that I truckled to public opinion and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant ‘appeared’ by some wholly unknown process.” [emphasis mine]

Thank you Nepenthe. An excellent post. This is what I wanted to know.

IMO, no rational mind, even now, can say "The process is known".

 

[tumbleweed41]

the op does ask about the 'original theory'

i know most people think Darwin was its originator and this is why they go straight for his explanation but as a creationist, i always look at things from the beginning

Ah...the "original"...OK...

Aristotle suggested a transition between the living and the nonliving, and theorized that in all things there is a constant desire to move from the lower to the higher.
Many Greek philosophers taught that life had originated in the waters, "evolving" to current form.

 

[Tiberius]

they evolve into a great variety within their family group.

Tell me, are reptiles a different family group to birds?

 

[Pegg]

Tell me, are reptiles a different family group to birds?

can a bird and reptile interbreed?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

can a bird and reptile interbreed?

Interesting....

So while the human primate can not, that we know of, interbreed with non-human primates (chimpanzees, orangutans....) we know that we are related on a genetic and morphological level...which in fact go to ancestry.

 

[Pegg]

Interesting....

So while the human primate can not, that we know of, interbreed with non-human primates (chimpanzees, orangutans....) we know that we are related on a genetic and morphological level...which in fact go to ancestry.

reproduction is the key to identifying ancestry.

if reproduction were possible between other primates and humans, I'd be of the opinion that decent with modification was the mechanism that all living things came into being....but there is no link between us and other primates...fertilization is not possible between us.

 

[Pegg]

In the immediate sense, yes they are.

Yup. Creating new species, new genera, and sometimes even new families and such.

Wow, and double wow. 2 points to agree on

 

[Skwim]

Wow, and double wow. 2 points to agree on

Okay, now you're scaring me.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

reproduction is the key to identifying ancestry.

While it's important it's not necessarily the case here. genetically we can trace our relationship back.

Take cats in the wild. While they are all cats they are all not the same (species) thus they can not interbreed naturally and produce viable offspring. On a genetic and morphological level they are very, very similar. Such is the case with humans and non-human primates.

but there is no link between us and other primates

Unfortunately for you and other creationist..we, the human primate and the non-human primates are joined at the genetic hip.

 

[Pegg]

While it's important it's not necessarily the case here. genetically we can trace our relationship back.

Take cats in the wild. While they are all cats they are all not the same (species) thus they can not interbreed naturally and produce viable offspring. On a genetic and morphological level they are very, very similar. Such is the case with humans and non-human primates.

here you are talking about various different cats...the difference being that you are comparing cats with cats.... not cats with horses or cats with cows.

Unfortunately for you and other creationist..we, the human primate and the non-human primates are joined at the genetic hip.

even though the genetic difference between humans and chimps is only 5% (according to some sources) that very small 5% still amounts to 40 billion differences in the dna

I know it sounds so close when you are talking about the percentage, but its a hell of a lot of differences when you look closer at what it translates to.

"Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome."

 

[Dirty Penguin]

even though the genetic difference between humans and chimps is only 5% (according to some sources) that very small 5% still amounts to 40 billion differences in the dna

And this is not enough to show ancestry? Human Primates and Non-Human Primates are more alike than what you think. On the genetic level many examples of redundant pseudogenes are shared between primates and humans. One is the ψη-globin gene, a hemoglobin pseudogene. It is shared among the primates only, in the exact chromosomal location, with the same mutations that destroy its function as a protein-coding gene.

even though the genetic difference between humans and chimps is only 5% (according to some sources) that very small 5% still amounts to 40 billion differences in the dna (in bold is my emphasis)
I know it sounds so close when you are talking about the percentage, but its a hell of a lot of differences when you look closer at what it translates to.

"Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome."

Actually this is incorrect. Your source says.....

"Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome."

So it's millions and not billions. So the differences aren't really that great. Additionally your source says.....

"The vast majority of those differences are not biologically significant, but researchers were able to identify a couple thousand differences that are potentially important to the evolution of the human lineage."

Basically human and non-human primates are closer in ancestral relation than we are to any other species on the planet. This makes the ToE a sound theory. No parts of the theory deals with the "origins of life" rather it focuses on the change in life over time.

 

[tumbleweed41]

even though the genetic difference between humans and chimps is only 5% (according to some sources) that very small 5% still amounts to 40 billion[sic] differences in the dna
"Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome."

A difference of 1 in 1,000 nucleotides between two humans chosen at random amounts to approximately 3 million nucleotide differences since the human genome has about 3 billion nucleotides. Most of these SNPs are neutral but some are functional and influence phenotypic differences between humans through alleles. It is estimated that a total of 10 million SNPs exist in the human population of which at least 1% are functional.
Human genetic variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


OMG! Humans are not related to each other! To much variation!

 

[Pegg]

And this is not enough to show ancestry? Human Primates and Non-Human Primates are more alike than what you think. On the genetic level many examples of redundant pseudogenes are shared between primates and humans. One is the ψη-globin gene, a hemoglobin pseudogene. It is shared among the primates only, in the exact chromosomal location, with the same mutations that destroy its function as a protein-coding gene.




Actually this is incorrect. Your source says.....

"Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome."

So it's millions and not billions. So the differences aren't really that great. Additionally your source says.....

"The vast majority of those differences are not biologically significant, but researchers were able to identify a couple thousand differences that are potentially important to the evolution of the human lineage."

Basically human and non-human primates are closer in ancestral relation than we are to any other species on the planet. This makes the ToE a sound theory. No parts of the theory deals with the "origins of life" rather it focuses on the change in life over time.

40million is still a very large number of differences

and i really dont believe that anyone can assume that we are related just because we our dna is closer to primates then anything else. The fact is that DNA is the molecule found in all living things...just like a microchip is found in all sorts of digital gadgets that may not be related.

 

[tumbleweed41]

40million is still a very large number of differences

Not really.

Human genetic variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia