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

[Pegg]

Originally Posted by Skwim

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]

Originally Posted by Pegg

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]

Originally Posted by cablescavenger

He invites testing of his theory.

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

[Falvlun]

Originally Posted by Witch9

On the Origin of Species[/color][/size][/font][font=Verdana][size=2][color=Navy] 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]

Originally Posted by idea

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.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Falvlun

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]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

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.