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

[Yerda]

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.

If I propose that we are closely related by descent to chimpanzees, doesn't the fact that our genomes are so similar support that proposition?

 

[Pegg]

If I propose that we are closely related by descent to chimpanzees, doesn't the fact that our genomes are so similar support that proposition?

if all living things were not all bound by the same molecules, perhaps.

But the fact is that all living things have dna. Just as every song played on a piano is played from the same 7 notes... it doesnt prove that the same composer made every song though.

 

[Skwim]

if all living things were not all bound by the same molecules, perhaps.

But the fact is that all living things have dna. Just as every song played on a piano is played from the same 7 notes... it doesnt prove that the same composer made every song though.

But with those seven keys various "families" of combinations can be constructed.

Rondo forms,
Sonata forms
Ternary forms
Binary forms
Strophic forms
etc.

Then there are more specific forms

Estampie
Motet
Chanson
Madrigral
Allemade
Partita
etc.

Then there are all the evolutions coming from the seven, such as

Stride from ragtime, ragtime from march and polyrhythms, march from the cadences of Mozart, Beethoven, and Mahler.

All from the same seven notes.

 

[McBell]

If yes, then what and with what evidence?

Anaximander (c. 610 BC – c. 546 BC)

Anaximander speculated about the beginnings and origin of animal life. Taking into account the existence of fossils, he claimed that animals sprang out of the sea long ago. The first animals were born trapped in a spiny bark, but as they got older, the bark would dry up and break.[37] As the early humidity evaporated, dry land emerged and, in time, humankind had to adapt. The 3rd century Roman writer Censorinus reports:

Anaximander of Miletus considered that from warmed up water and earth emerged either fish or entirely fishlike animals. Inside these animals, men took form and embryos were held prisoners until puberty; only then, after these animals burst open, could men and women come out, now able to feed themselves.[38]
​

Anaximander put forward the idea that humans had to spend part of this transition inside the mouths of big fish to protect themselves from the Earth's climate until they could come out in open air and lose their scales.[39] He thought that, considering humans' extended infancy, we could not have survived in the primeval world in the same manner we do presently.


Even though he had no theory of natural selection, some people consider him as evolution's most ancient proponent. The theory of an aquatic descent of man was re-conceived centuries later as the aquatic ape hypothesis. These pre-Darwinian concepts may seem strange, considering modern knowledge and scientific methods, because they present complete explanations of the universe while using bold and hard-to-demonstrate hypotheses. However, they illustrate the beginning of a phenomenon sometimes called the "Greek miracle": men try to explain the nature of the world, not with the aid of myths or religion, but with material principles. This is the very principle of scientific thought, which was later advanced further by improved research methods.
​

Source
​

Other Pre-Darwin "Evolutionists":

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Carolus Linnaeus, or Carl Linné (1707-1778)
Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802)

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829)
Thomas Malthus' (1766-1834)


Source
​

Nope, no mention of god in their theories.
But then, that is really no surprise.
Evolution does not deal with the beginning of life.

 

[McBell]

Something I find most interesting is how creationists go on and on about how life cannot come from non-life when their ancestors believed in spontaneous generation....

Even more interesting is that spontaneous generation was believed true because of the Biblical (and other) creation stories....

 

[Tiberius]

can a bird and reptile interbreed?

Then I suppose a african Swallow and a European swallow are two different kinds as well.

Seems like Noah had to cram in several MILLION animals on the Ark then, doesn't it?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

40million is still a very large number of differences

To you it is but to researchers who deal with this everyday the number can be insignificant. What they discovered was that this 40mil difference is not a big deal on a biological level but is still interesting to take note when concerning how we and our non-human primates evolved.

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.

Then again you're not a biologist and seem not to understand how DNA works. Look at your own family tree. Through DNA comparison it is safe to "assume" that ancestry exist. Compare your DNA to your cousin..or your cousin's, cousin.....YEP...you're related.

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.

Yes and No. Our DNA and theirs shows ancestry because genetically we are closely related than any other organism on the planet. All life is connected but we're more closely related than anything else. Microchips are something completely different in a way......

 

[Yerda]

if all living things were not all bound by the same molecules, perhaps.

Are you saying that because DNA is ubiqitous relatedness cannot be established?

There is something ironic there.

 

[tumbleweed41]

But with those seven keys various "families" of combinations can be constructed.

Rondo forms,
Sonata forms
Ternary forms
Binary forms
Strophic forms
etc.

Then there are more specific forms

Estampie
Motet
Chanson
Madrigral
Allemade
Partita
etc.

Then there are all the evolutions coming from the seven, such as

Stride from ragtime, ragtime from march and polyrhythms, march from the cadences of Mozart, Beethoven, and Mahler.

All from the same seven notes.

:band:

Frubals!!

 

[bain-druie]

But with those seven keys various "families" of combinations can be constructed.

Rondo forms,
Sonata forms
Ternary forms
Binary forms
Strophic forms
etc.

Then there are more specific forms

Estampie
Motet
Chanson
Madrigral
Allemade
Partita
etc.

Then there are all the evolutions coming from the seven, such as

Stride from ragtime, ragtime from march and polyrhythms, march from the cadences of Mozart, Beethoven, and Mahler.

All from the same seven notes.

If I had not already frubal'ed you a few minutes ago, I would do so now! :bow:

 

[Pegg]

But with those seven keys various "families" of combinations can be constructed.

Rondo forms,
Sonata forms
Ternary forms
Binary forms
Strophic forms
etc.

Then there are more specific forms

Estampie
Motet
Chanson
Madrigral
Allemade
Partita
etc.

Then there are all the evolutions coming from the seven, such as

Stride from ragtime, ragtime from march and polyrhythms, march from the cadences of Mozart, Beethoven, and Mahler.

All from the same seven notes.

yes, all from the same seven notes, yet all entirely new and separate entities

Mozart was Austrian, Beethoven was German..somewhat similar, but unrelated by ancestry.

 

[Skwim]

yes, all from the same seven notes, yet all entirely new and separate entities

Mozart was Austrian, Beethoven was German..somewhat similar, but unrelated by ancestry.

I GIVE UP
​

 

[cablescavenger]

Just because so many now attribute the so-called OTE to Darwin (and ignore Wallace) doesn't mean they're right

You are quite right that it does not mean they are right. Darwin did not assume he was right. He tested his won findings:

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. But I can find out no such case.

His work is still tested today, and it still stands up to scrutiny.

Darwin admitted that it went against his religious beliefs and he struggled with his findings:

It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception; I would almost as soon believe with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells now living on the sea-shore.

He invites testing of his theory.

 

[idea]

He invites testing of his theory.

Religion invites testing too - unfortunately, not too many people perform the test.

 

[Falvlun]

On the Origin of Species[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] was considered to be a "new" theory about how the biology and physiology of species changes over time. Previous concepts and arguments date back to the times of Greek philosophers and Chinese sages who predated Darwin and Wallace by more than 2,000 years.

The "new" theory wasn't just evolution... it was natural selection, the mechanism by which evolution occurs.

 

[Falvlun]

Religion invites testing too - unfortunately, not too many people perform the test.

How is that passage substantively different than, say, a passage from the Silmarillion? That's not a test at all, except perhaps as a test over which random text you choose to believe, or not.

 

[McBell]

The "new" theory wasn't just evolution... it was natural selection, the mechanism by which evolution occurs.

And Natural Selection is actually not "the" mechanism but "a" (meaning one of many) mechanism...

 

[Falvlun]

And Natural Selection is actually not "the" mechanism but "a" (meaning one of many) mechanism...

Indeed.

Though it was the big new idea from Darwin and Wallace.