Simple Explanation of Darwin's TOE

Mr TB

Banned
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
5,776
High-fives all round!
:D:D
May I chance my arm before the thread is closed.

existing life evolved from a common ancestor presumably a single cell.
lt is scientifically incorrect to question how life came into existence because life exist.

The theory has been renamed
The unsubstantiated hypothesis of molecules to man evolution.

voila
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
82,396
Dodo... fsck off with your particles-to-man hypothesis... you are the only entity in existence that spouts that nonsense...
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
82,396
Well your idea of what TOE is, is completely incorrect and not supported by any evidence or any accept version of the theory.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
82,396
If you found the sources on the web confusing, then you give up trying to understand the TOE. Its a simple theory and the sources on the web present it in a simple easy to understand fashion. Even wikipedia's entry is nice and concise.
 

Pooky

Garfield's Teddy
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
24,506
If you found the sources on the web confusing, then you give up trying to understand the TOE. Its a simple theory and the sources on the web present it in a simple easy to understand fashion. Even wikipedia's entry is nice and concise.
Well I found it confusing.
 

Avatar_5

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
222
Say you have your stereotypical high school nerd and jock. Now your jock buffs up while the nerd hits the books.

Because the jock buffed up, he can beat the nerd up, steal his lunch money, eat more, and then buff up even more. All the buffness allows the jock to get the stereotypical high school cheerleader, while the nerd sit alone at home, writing a computer virus.

This allowed the buffed up jock to procreate, ensuring survival of his genes, while the nerds genes go nowhere. Thus, the "fitter" (in this case) of the two genes survived.

This is a (very) simplified version of survival of the fittest, and similar to what Darwin's originally published TOE says. Note that the theory might well be applied in another way, such as that the nerd gets a fat paycheck which pulls the cheerleader which ensures survival of the "getting fat paychecks" gene..

(Please note: The characters in this post is purely fictional. Any resemblance to any person, living or dead, is purely coincidental.)
 

Pooky

Garfield's Teddy
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
24,506
Say you have your stereotypical high school nerd and jock........
That was real helpful, thanks alot.

EDIT: Oh and thanks to the MODS for cleaning this up.
 
Last edited:

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
36,601
Evolution is the adaptation of an organism to its environmental pressures through the selection of favorable chance mutations over time, resulting in specialized mechanisms that endow the organism with a greater survival capability that eventually spreads to its species. Evolutionary processes are therefore attributed to the variegation and extreme specializations of life in all forms.
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,231
May I chance my arm before the thread is closed.

existing life evolved from a common ancestor presumably a single cell.

lt is scientifically incorrect to question how life came into existence because life exist.
No reason why one shouldn't question how life came about.

The question is whether Abiogenesis (That field of study) is relevant to validity of TOE which explains an observable phenomenia.

The theory has been renamed
The unsubstantiated hypothesis of molecules to man evolution.

voila
and the peer review papers?
 

Avatar_5

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
222
Evolution is the adaptation of an organism to its environmental pressures through the selection of favorable chance mutations over time, resulting in specialized mechanisms that endow the organism with a greater survival capability that eventually spreads to its species. Evolutionary processes are therefore attributed to the variegation and extreme specializations of life in all forms.
I agree with what you're saying, though I think evolution is a bit broader than that.

Firstly, I believe evolution only comes into play at the "spreads to its species" part. For the single organism, it's simply random genetic mutations, which might well have a negative effect, which doesn't quite fit in with the idea of evolution. (I might well be very wrong on this point, don't have the books or international access to check myself up on this :p)

Secondly, Evolution isn't necessarily about a specialized mechanism, it's also about the honing of that mechanism (the stripier zebra surviving), or honing of other "non-specialized" talents (the faster zebra surviving).

EDIT: Also, it's losing bits that aren't used anymore, like the (presumed) shrinking of our toes after we stopped using them to pick things up. Although, I've never seen how this fits in with the "survival of the fittest" thing, unless the bit that is being lost has some detrimental effect on survival. Did longer toes make us run slower, I wonder? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

cyghost

Executive Member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
6,394
Hey Pooky, I heard Darwin discredited his own theory on his death bed...did ya know that :eek:
This is a lie told by creationists. Funny they shouldn't really lie should they?

I'm not even going to give you a link - research this yourself.
 

Mr TB

Banned
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
5,776
Nope, they never lie :D
Do you mind a simple correction, your statement is a lie, breaking one of the ten commandmends mean you have broken every single one of them...
The creationist and any other believer fully understand the consequences, it is only unbelievers that argue this point...

Although this is rather to be discussed in the pd-section I can not let a flagrant lie like this go by without correcting it. Surfing the net show that on many sites creationists indeed warn against using this argument to prove evolution being fake...

Although this may have been a good-hearted joke... A joke is all that is needed to further unacceptable actions...
 

Avatar_5

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
222
...your statement is a lie, breaking one of the ten commandmends mean you have broken every single one of them...
:eek:

Ignoring that for now, how is it "scientifically incorrect to question how life came into existence because life exist"?

That's like saying Newton shouldn't have wondered why the apple fell on his head, simply because it blatantly did.. :confused:

(And before someone points at me yelling liar, liar, pants on fire, I am fully aware that the apple didn't actually fall on his head, okay? ;))
 

cyghost

Executive Member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
6,394
DSurfing the net show that on many sites creationists indeed warn against using this argument to prove evolution being fake...
Yet when it first surfaced it was widely spread ~ even on sites that might have since withdrawn it.

They make me puke. Because this is by no means the only lie they tell. Show me any creation site and I'll show you lies.

But here we sit in 2008 and I still have to point it (Darwin's recanting) out as a lie. A good lie never dies, it seems. :rolleyes:
 

PostmanPot

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
34,944
Ignoring that for now, how is it "scientifically incorrect to question how life came into existence because life exist"?

That's like saying Newton shouldn't have wondered why the apple fell on his head, simply because it blatantly did.. :confused:
C'mon... Goddidit! :p :D
 
Top