Chicken or the Egg Discussion

[AasumDude]

I believe that the answer to this can be found by either one of two ways, depending on your beleif system. If you believe the creational theory, that God made the world with every living thing in it, then according to Genesus (first book of the bible to those of you who are of other religious backgrounds) the chicken came first in its entire form.

If you believe in the evolutionary theory, then technically the chicken was transformed very slowly over several million years until the "modern day chicken" has been grown from an egg, produced by a chicken-like being that happened to lay it.

Discuss.

[jewpinthethird]

We have discussed this previously and got nowhere...or we did. I cant remember, but either everyone agreed on the egg, or we didnt. Not sure.

But once again, there isnt really much to discuss. Egg, Chicken, they both taste good.

Unlocked.

[DonCasablanca]

Aasum and jewpin, I think we all know the real question here. You don't have to hide it.

Why discuss these superficial, insubstantial thoughts when we can get at the real meat of the dilemma? At the very marrow of the human experience? At the juicy center of all that transcends this earthly realm and makes life (at least life from 7am-midnight, excluding holidays) meaningful?

Personally, I think Popeye's is better than KFC. Not only are the prices more reasonable, the service more smiley, and the establishments better-kempt, but there is so much more for one's palette to explore! You have your family meal-deals -- the two-piece, the three-piece, the breast, the white meat, the dark meat -- but above that is the wondrous realm of the chicken-finger meal! And here, Popeye's outdoes KFC hands down. No, wait -- hands up! Like on a thrilling roller coaster ride, but with fried chicken. Explore Popeye's endless mixing possibilities with their splendid array of sauces. Create the perfect boneless chicken eating experience -- try honey mustecue sauce, or barbecetchup, or perhaps even grape jellustard.

And then, sink your teeth into that far crispier, warmer, and golden-browner biscuit, slathered in deliciously congealed cornseed oil (you found it in those packets labelled "butter"). Wait, did you forget your spicey fries?! Eat those first, save the biscuit for last. Oh man, not that those spicey fries aren't exquisite -- so, spicey, and, fried. Wash that slimy residue off the roof of your mouth with that tall cup of Coke -- that's right, you could get a Coke, because you went to Popeye's instead of KFC. Sit back, content, satisfied, knowing that even if you lick your fingers for the next hour they'll still feel greasy. Damn, that was good. You'll probably need a cigarette.

I'm kind of hungry. I think I'll go eat.

[Izzi]

ok i have an idea... i think the egg came first.. Reason? because over time a weird bird would mutate and change acording to its evirment and become the new thing after it hatces and eventually after enough mutations the form right before the chicken would lay an egg and make a chicken which is slightly altered from its previrous form. THERE NOW SHUT UP

[Tps222]

Another pointless religion discussion. Like you said, the on-going battle of evolution vs creation. This thread won't go anywhere, and will end up with either a flame war, or nothing. Nothing can ever come out of this arguement, other then agreeing with Don. Popeyes> KFC

[Izzi]

THE EGG CAME FIRST

[super-smashman]

I came first, 'nuff said...

[Glanzer_Syne]

oh god... lock please... this discussion will get NOWHERE... its all based on beleifs... drop it... may as well start or resume a creation/evolution thread... bleh

[DonCasablanca]

For God's sake, stop spamming the thread!

THEY DON'T EVEN SERVE EGGS AT POPEYE'S OR KFC.

If you were going to debate whether to eat the chicken before starting on the fries, or perhaps cleansing your palette with a beverage before taking your first bite of chicken, that would be a topic for another thread. And probably another forum! This is critical thinking. We step back and ponder the entire array of chicken-eating experiences -- Popeye's?, KFC?, Chili's? -- not these trivial "which to eat first" dilemmas. I think we can agree: that basket o' chicken is going to be delicious, regardless of what you may or may not eat immediately before it.

Now please: Popeye's, or KFC?

[Izzi]

KFC

[Squeek]

I have to agree with Izzy here.

The mutation wouldn't occur while the species was alive and living, but it would occur during its formation in its pre-egg stage. Therefore, the egg containing the first chicken came first and then came the chicken.

Now the real question at-hand. If a rooster lays an egg on the center of a rooftop, which way will it fall?

~Squeek

[eyespewgreekfire]

It will fall whatever way the wind blows first. If there are no external forces like wind, it will sit on top of the roof.

[DonCasablanca]

Actually, whatever novel combination of DNA first constituted "chicken" speciation was probably created during meiosis of the first chicken's parents' gametes; not really mutation. But yes, that first chicken's egg would appear before the zygote would become a recognizable chicken.

Then that chicken would hatch. It would roam free and happy for many months, in the company of its chicken brethren.

Until one day, a day that will live in infamy, it would come across a creature -- a creature that walked on two legs, and had no fur. And he was probably black, so the chicken new it was in trouble. Immediately, it was speared, and slow roasted over a fire (unfortunately, fry batter hadn't evolved yet).

That day the world discovered just how delicious chicken is.

And that cro-magnon man?

His name was Popeye. And his chicken was, and still is, amazing. Definitely better than KFC.

[AasumDude]

Wow...im sorry that I would honestly expect an intelligent conversation with you people. well, i tried. *sigh*.

And roosters don't lay eggs.

[Rye_Bread]

This is a scientific question. None of us know **** about it. Even if you did take your highschool biology class, it doesn't give you anywhere near the right of a professional opinion. That's a fancy way of saying I don care (and no one should) about your opinion because it's based on nothing.

Cheers,
Ryan

[Squeek]

Uhh.

I was right.

Did you not read my reply? It was the right answer. Don only managed to elaborate on my rightness.

Nobody listens anymore. I swear.

~Squeek

[AasumDude]

you're the only one in this topic that made any sort of try at all. Thanks for trying but a conversation like this turned into a fast food discussion. Sick.

[alainbryden]

I posted this in another thread when this one was first locked.

Assume the evolutionary theory stands, which most beleieve it does: Since all gene transformation that would have resulted in a chicken takes place in the gametes, the egg came first, since it is the zygote produced by two haploid cells, it is the only possible organism that could contain the modern day chicken's genes - freshly mutated.

Therefore, the egg came first, all it takes is applied scientific theory.

Squeek was right.

Thread over.

[DonCasablanca]

This is a scientific question. None of us know (#$% about it. Even if you did take your highschool biology class, it doesn't give you anywhere near the right of a professional opinion. That's a fancy way of saying I don care (and no one should) about your opinion because it's based on nothing.

Cheers,
Ryan

Wow, cheers indeed Ryan.

About none of us knowing "(#$%" about it ... that "highschool" biology class to which you refer? It probably had something like 7th-grade life science as a prerequisite, which should have explained everything you need to know to formulate a "professional opinion" on this "scientific question." Mutation, meiosis.

But anyway, it's ineffably awesome that the Google adds above this thread (at least the first page) are for KFC. As that is, I'll remind you, the real topic at hand.

Although they should be for Popeye's.

[talisman]

but the egg that the first chicken evolved inside of wasn't a chicken egg, therefore the chicken came first. although there would need to be a rooster around somewhere too.

[Squeek]

No talisman, that is wrong. The mutation occured before it was an egg, so it was a chicken while inside the creature it was eventually to be born from. Just because it was born from a (whatever) doesn't make it that species. Was the first human a human or a monkey? If you say monkey, then we're all monkeys and humans don't exist.

~Squeek

[talisman]

dude eggs don't become chickens... an egg to a chicken is like the womb to a human. my point is that the the egg is a paleo-egg, laid by a paleo-chicken, with the first chicken inside. That first chicken then lays the first eggs. so the chicken comes first.

[alainbryden]

no, it wasn't a paleo-egg, think about it, the mutation ocurred in the gametes before they came together to fertilize the egg. Therefore, the egg was created containing all the genomes of the first "chicken" and the first egg that the first chicken laid was identical to it, therefore the egg came first.

[talisman]

but an egg is a sex cell... made by the paleochicken. It isn't created when fertilization occurs. That's like saying that when people have sex an egg is generated... not true. What does form is a zygote (I think that's the term).

The chicken (zygote) on the inside is created at fertilization. but that fertilization doesn't magically make the paleo-egg an egg, therefore the chicken is still inside the paleo-egg, and thusly came first.

[alainbryden]

The whole point is that a gamete mutated before fertilization, and so it is no longer the sex cell of a paleochicken, but the new organism called "chicken." If anything, the chicken sperm came before the egg or the chicken, but it definately goes in that order.

[talisman]

it depends on whether or not the mutation occurs in the egg or in the sperm I suppose, or both. If it's the sperm, then the chicken comes first because the egg never changes. otherwise it's the egg.

[falconsfan14]

its a matter of religion on where you believe all life came from. simple short answer :D

[alainbryden]

Short and simple answer: you've invaded the rest of FFR with your idiocy stay OUT of our CT.

Talisman, it's impossible for mutation that changes the genetics of the species to occur after formation of a zygote, therefore it's impossible for a paleo-chicken egg to bring a chicken into the world.

[talisman]

I never said anything about the mutation occurring in the zygote. I'm saying that if the mutation in genes that changes the paleochicken to chicken occurs in the paleosperm and not in the paleoegg, then the paleoegg doesn't become an egg. nevertheless, when the paleoegg is fertilized with the mutated sperm, it has a chicken forming inside it.

[alainbryden]

Oh I see what you're saying. Tricky. Now it baisically all depends on whether the male paleozygote mutated or the female paleozygote mutated.

So when they say "Which came first, the chicken or the egg." They are leaving out "sperm"
If you are only considering those two posibilities, then it's possible that you can consider the chicken as having come first. This is not truely reasonable. A cingle celled organisme containing all the chicken genes did then grow into a chicken. The issue now is whether or not you describe a develloping zygote as the chicken, or only the final form.

[TehDoldrums]

Darwins theory explains that the egg did.New species evolve when mutations in parental reproductive cells result in offspring with unique traits.The fertilized egg is the first member of a new species, so the egg comes before the chicken.

[iced_fetto]

think about it this way, if you wanted to create something, wouldn't you start out from scratch and build it up from there if you really wanted something nice. For example, since most people are discussing it, fast food, to make the best you start with the best right and build up your recipe from there

i say, if you can create a living thing, you would probably want to start it at the beginning, an egg in this case, so that your chicken will be the best it can

thats one side of it, heres the other

evolution bothers me, even though things can change over time, are we all not still homo sapiens like we have been for most of the time, do you see humans making any drastic change, if you waited another few billion years, might we lose even more hair and stand even straighter

we arent getting anywhere, when will we finally grow some wings, like chickens, man they are smart, they must have high mutagenic factors, a whole chicken must have just landed down on earth from space, i bet thats why they cant fly, the first chicken probably damaged his own wings and when he went to use his electronic cloning device, it was all over from there, chickens went from the top of the food chain, to underneath us

i prefer eating hamburgers than chicken burgers though

[TheTypist]

Well, mutations seem pretty rare. And even when they do occur, they often do not benefit the creature. And even in the unlikely event of good mutation, it's very unlikely that more than one creature would get it at once in the same place to be able to breed.

It would take far more than a couple of billion years. Besides, the Earth isn't that old.

[flypie743]

Typist is back?

I remember you :>

[TheTypist]

Hey, I guess I am. I didn't know people have still been around long enough to remember me.

I'll be less of a jerk this time.

The Earth isn't old enough to support the Theory of Evolution.

Even then, you can blow wind on scales through as many generations as you want; that won't turn the scales into feathers.

[Squeek]

Uh...typist...mutation can occur at ANY time. There isn't some kinda restriction on mutation. 4.6 billion years is plenty of time for mutation to occur. I mean, human mutation of the skull has only been around for a couple thousand years now? So there's no factual basis on your part, I'm STILL right, and the thread is STILL over.

~Squeek

[TheTypist]

Well the Earth actually isn't 4.6 billion years old, more like, 6,000. That really doesn't allow for much mutation.

[alainbryden]

Well, it's nice to know you know so much better than the majority of brilliant scientists and researchers over the past decades. I'm sure you evidence is simply overwhelming.

Aren't we lucky guys?

Really.

Thread over.

[AasumDude]

Darwins theory explains that the egg did.New species evolve when mutations in parental reproductive cells result in offspring with unique traits.The fertilized egg is the first member of a new species, so the egg comes before the chicken.

yeah but darwin was also a crazy old racist who believed in eugenics.

[TheTypist]

Yes, and that's why the only thing that has done any real evolving is the theory of Evolution itself.

The age of the earth cannot be 4.6 billion years. At the rate the Sun has been shrinking, the earth would have been completely comsumed by its mass back then.

Those "brilliant" scientists you mention are only ones biased for Evolution, found in textbooks and magazines that are biased for Evolution. The evidence for a very young earth certainly won't appear in textbooks at schools, since that would go against the religion they teach.

[DonCasablanca]

Those "brilliant" scientists you mention are only ones biased for Evolution, found in textbooks and magazines that are biased for Evolution. The evidence for a very young earth certainly won't appear in textbooks at schools, since that would go against the religion they teach.


Yes, it probably is a safe bet that Creationism hasn't attracted any "brilliant" scientists.

I think it is absolutely pathetic that you would go so far to refer to Evolution as a "religion" that "biased ... textbooks and magazines" teach, as if to snub Evolution as an equally faith-based (or "bias"-based) doctrine as that of Creationism. As if Evolution was a religion.

Yes, you have successfully identified the sickening irony of your point of view: Evolution is, by definition, a science. The Bible is, by definition, a sacred religious text.

I am deeply offended, as an Episcopalian, that you would try to read any words of the Bible and substitute them for something as banal as a middle-school biology textbook. Science has built up evidence -- excellent, unrefuted evidence, that has spawned scores of new sciences -- that Evolution explains the fossil record. The Bible hasn't explained the fossil record -- the Bible is about something that Christians should know is more important.

So if you have a crackpot explanation of the fossil record, be my guest and explain why radiocarbon dating is so wildly wrong. But Evolution is not a religion, so you have to play by the rules of Science. And read why this "not enough time for mutation" nonsense is indeed nonsense in last month's thread on this topic.

[TheTypist]

Oh, but Evolution is really a religion, and a very popular one at that. It gives people the chance to be able to worship themselves. Either that, or they bow down to the gods of random chance and have faith that they performed the supernatural fairy tale that is Evolution.

Carbon dating does not work past around 50,000 years because of its incredibly short half-life, which is why scientists use other forms of radiometric dating. And of course, radiometric dating only measures the amount of Isotope 1 compared to the amount of Isotope 2, which was supposed to come from Isotope 1. Then they try and mathemetically calculate how old things are based on the half-life of the element. This, of course, assumes that there were no Isotope 2s to begin with. That's not a very safe assumption.

Please check up on what you call "unrefuted." Wild evolutionary theories can run rampant in popular magazines that favor Evolution, but that doesn't mean that no evidence for good ol' 7-day creation.

So go on and bow to the gods of random chance. I doubt they'll hear you.

[DonCasablanca]

Good thing that the earth is only 6,000 years old, so we can stick with good ol' carbon.

And even though I am, believe me, quite impressed with your flawless understanding of geology, you've utterly missed my point. You, and many other Creationists, are evidently reading the Bible as a science textbook.

Why?

I certainly hope that you ascribe more meaning to it. This is perhaps material for another thread: I don't understand how people view science and religion (as I've often heard) as two windows looking out at the same world. I assumed that most healthy Christians look to the Bible as providing insight into the living of one's life, whereas science investigates the environment in which we live that life; something certainly interesting, although patently less relevant to questions that people really need to answer. So why on earth would you bother creating this conflict? Religion isn't science, even you fundamentalists can concede that. Science certainly isn't creating the conflict; I haven't read any Nature papers describing why exactly we evolved from apes, just theories how. I haven't read any psychology papers detailing for what greater purposes we love and hate, just the mechanisms involved. There are no challenges from science comparable to your:
bow down to the gods of random chance. I doubt they'll hear you.



So try to ascribe some real meaning to the Bible, and let science derive its own meaning. The fight you're picking is pointless. And again, already discussed this in a thread last month.

[TheTypist]

Well I wasn't here last month.

If someone were to read the Bible like you mentioned, as if it were some collection of fortune cookie notes, then it would become completely irrelevant and not worth reading.

It's enough that you've spit in the faces of the great scientists like Newton, Kepler, Mendell and Pasteur, who were all creationists. You would have thought that by now the ridiculous ideas of spontaneous genration would have been done away with now. But you continue to think that the flies come straight from the dead, stinking piece of rotten meat and completely ignore the scientifically accurate idea of biogenesis.

The theory of Evolution just has to keep evolving because it doesn't make sense. That's why people keep having to make up all these bizarre theories you mention. I think the Bible does mention all that continuous speculation:

They became vain in their imaginations; their foolish heart was darkened; professing themselves to be wise they became fools.

Ecclesiastes 10:12-13

And don't you dare say that your idea of "science" and religion can go peacefully, because Evolution tries to get right in the face of God and say "You don't exist." I pity the scientists who continue to defend Evolution, just as I would pity a doctor who tried to use leeches to reduce a fever.


So go on. Keep on dreaming. "Let your imaginations run wild." That's what they said in Kindergarten, wasn't it? Wow. I guess they teach you how to contribute to Evolution in Kindtergarten too!

[Mindfields]

Hmm...
I see that most of you are using "Which came first: the chicken or the egg?" as a technical term, as in you are using it for and actual chicken, and an actual egg. Izzy, you are saying that the chicken egg came first, but what the question really (in my opinion) is asking is "Which came first: Whole form or fetus?"
I really think the whole form came first, and that's what (basically) Izzy said.

[TheTypist]

Well yeah, but even though the whole chicken may have come first, the eggs that the it produced then came before any of the chickens that came afterward.

[iced_fetto]

If it truly is which came first chicken or egg instead of the chickens or eggs, arent we just assuming anyways that if a chicken had eggs with whatever sort of things its parents were, that a chicken would come out, instead of the original species or maybe some third party

[rydenHS]

Aasum and jewpin, I think we all know the real question here. You don't have to hide it.

Why discuss these superficial, insubstantial thoughts when we can get at the real meat of the dilemma? At the very marrow of the human experience? At the juicy center of all that transcends this earthly realm and makes life (at least life from 7am-midnight, excluding holidays) meaningful?

Personally, I think Popeye's is better than KFC. Not only are the prices more reasonable, the service more smiley, and the establishments better-kempt, but there is so much more for one's palette to explore! You have your family meal-deals -- the two-piece, the three-piece, the breast, the white meat, the dark meat -- but above that is the wondrous realm of the chicken-finger meal! And here, Popeye's outdoes KFC hands down. No, wait -- hands up! Like on a thrilling roller coaster ride, but with fried chicken. Explore Popeye's endless mixing possibilities with their splendid array of sauces. Create the perfect boneless chicken eating experience -- try honey mustecue sauce, or barbecetchup, or perhaps even grape jellustard.

And then, sink your teeth into that far crispier, warmer, and golden-browner biscuit, slathered in deliciously congealed cornseed oil (you found it in those packets labelled "butter"). Wait, did you forget your spicey fries?! Eat those first, save the biscuit for last. Oh man, not that those spicey fries aren't exquisite -- so, spicey, and, fried. Wash that slimy residue off the roof of your mouth with that tall cup of Coke -- that's right, you could get a Coke, because you went to Popeye's instead of KFC. Sit back, content, satisfied, knowing that even if you lick your fingers for the next hour they'll still feel greasy. Damn, that was good. You'll probably need a cigarette.

I'm kind of hungry. I think I'll go eat.

What the hell? I am really confused. LOL. Weren't we talking about which came first? That would make a good topic though. Props!

Anyway my idea is that the egg came first because prob. two birds similar to chickens banged in bed and then OUT came a chicken egg. Woot.

[MonkeyFoo]

Point #1: Nobody said that we're talking chicken or chicken egg. We all feel it's implied, but really the egg must have come first, because things were hatching out of eggs before birds existed.

Point #2: With the question of chicken egg first or chicken first, indeed the egg must have come first. All that stuff about mutation during meiosis etc. is the most likely thing. There is, of course, a minute possibility that the chicken's closest ancestor had an egg, which hatched, and then all of its cells mutated into chicken DNA. But that's like the probability that, standing in a heavy downpour for five hours, no rain would come within a mile of you.

Point #3: Ahh, creationists. If God did indeed make the Earth some 6000 years ago, let's just say that He made it pre-aged-looking. After all, it should be well within His power to make all the fossils with the right amounts of Carbon-13 in them. So, why not just say that the Earth, while technically only 6,000 years old, has had 4.6 billion years worth of development, if only simulated? And maybe He did make Adam first and then Eve, and later all the other animals. He could have just made it look like they had a chain of evolution that runs up to Humans. He could have even made evolution work, a system set in place so that His creatures will continue to develop with only His guidance, rather than His direct intervention.

In summary of point #3, please realize that all of our modern science can indeed be true, alongside the teachings of the Bible. After all, God works in mysterious ways, right?

Actual point of point #3: Quit arguing that modern science is wrong. The bible doesn't make it wrong, that's just how you have come to interpret it. Have an open mind.

Sidenote: I'm an Atheist, and I think that the whole God concept is like a big add-on to reality. Occam's Razor always seemed to work well enough for me: "Occam's Razor: It slices, it dices, it removes superfluous supernatural entities."

Point #4: Feel free to argue with my other points. If I've gone wrong somewhere, I'd like to know. I haven't read more than a few pages of the Bible, and I'm not entirely clear on all of the beliefs of the various Christian sects.

Blather, blather, blather. That's enough for tonight. I'm a go sleep now.

[Draigun]

I don't feel like reading all of this, so I'm going to go ahead and tell you:

It was the egg.

Believe me, I asked Jeeves. He told me it was due to a mutation after two non-chickens had sexlolz and the result of the mutation was a chicken (which obviously began in the egg.) This concludes it was the egg which came first, due to the original chicken's parents being non-chickens..

..Or something.

[natsuko]

hmmm is this post locked yet?

[iced_fetto]

Assuming evolution is how the chicken came to be, at what point in time (maybe a year if you have it) did that first chicken egg show up and when do you think chickens will have an egg that isn't a chicken, I wonder if the species can get any tastier. What would we call the little fella?

[MonkeyFoo]

What would we call the little fella?
Definitely the Chickmaster 3000, by Ronco.

But then going back to the discussion at hand, I thought about the question some more. There's another issue of semantics here: if it is chicken or chicken egg, a chicken egg means from a chicken, right? So we could define away the question and say that the chicken had to be first, or else there could be no chicken's egg.

And finally, the last thing I can think of that could be a variable here is if a rooster was born from a mammal through some massive mutation, then it couldn't lay any eggs because it's a male, thus having the chicken before the egg. This is assuming that you aren't calling the mammalian egg an egg per se, because there's no hard shell and the chicken doesn't develop inside of it and hatch from it.

Regarding my previous post, now I've realized that some of modern science doesn't work with the Bible. The whole part about the "heavens above." Of course, the church gradually had to accept the facts about outer space, but the Bible remains unchanged. Who knows? Maybe some cattle ranchers in Texas think that outer space is a big conspiracy to make us lose faith in the Bible, because most people have no real proof that outer space actually exists. It could, after all, just be God making little specks of light come from Heaven, not stars, right? So, the bible does indeed come in conflict with modern science, but the church acknowledges most modern science as fact anyway.

Writing that, I've thought of another thing. How do we define a chicken? If it looks like a chicken, smells like a chicken, sounds like a chicken, feels like a chicken, and even tastes like a chicken, then it must have been a chicken, right? So therefore it is impossible to say exactly when the chicken came into existence, unless the mutation was very large. This, of course, doesn't effect which came first, just when the first chicken/egg came.

I think that's everything that we could possibly cover in this topic; it should be locked. Anything else posted here will just be blatant repetition or irrelevant.

[firemon22]

Locked

[TheTypist]

Point #3: Ahh, creationists. If God did indeed make the Earth some 6000 years ago, let's just say that He made it pre-aged-looking. After all, it should be well within His power to make all the fossils with the right amounts of Carbon-13 in them. So, why not just say that the Earth, while technically only 6,000 years old, has had 4.6 billion years worth of development, if only simulated? And maybe He did make Adam first and then Eve, and later all the other animals. He could have just made it look like they had a chain of evolution that runs up to Humans. He could have even made evolution work, a system set in place so that His creatures will continue to develop with only His guidance, rather than His direct intervention.

In summary of point #3, please realize that all of our modern science can indeed be true, alongside the teachings of the Bible. After all, God works in mysterious ways, right?

Actual point of point #3: Quit arguing that modern science is wrong. The bible doesn't make it wrong, that's just how you have come to interpret it. Have an open mind.

Sidenote: I'm an Atheist, and I think that the whole God concept is like a big add-on to reality. Occam's Razor always seemed to work well enough for me: "Occam's Razor: It slices, it dices, it removes superfluous supernatural entities."


Ahhh, Atheists. So fun to hear their naturalistic speculations, yet depressing to hear how they haven't learned from past mistakes.

Actual point #1= "modern" science has been proven wrong many times before. For example, most modern doctors do not use bloodletting to reduce fever anymore. But once it was commonly accepted as scientific. Most modern scientists back in the day thought that proteins were responsible for genetic activity, when later it was discovered to be DNA instead.

Many people way back in the day believed in spontaneous generation, where flies would mysteriously appear out of rotting meat. But today-- oops, no, what am I saying? People still believe in spontaneous generation today, only they think life comes from pools of jumbled up building blocks.

Of course, we all know what it took back then for one to even conceive the notion that the "modern" science was flawed. That's right: an open mind. So, you keep an open mind too, okay? Okay.

The picture of the Earth 4.6 billion years ago, in the mind of most Atheists, is probably one full of volcanic activity, and temperatures too hot to live in, and vast pools of lifes building blocks that would eventually turn into amoebas, which would eventually turn into frogs, which would eventually turn into princes and astronauts. However this is not the case.

In reality, there would still be unbearable temperatures, but it would be because the SUN is so ENORMOUSLY HUGE that it envelops the entire area where the Earth would be.

That's right: A few decades ago the Sun was found to be shrinking, about %0.1 every century. Spreading this out over 6,000 years is no problem, but 4.6 billion? That's a rather big Sun. Hmm...

[MalReynolds]

Cite your scources.


Actual point #1= "modern" science has been proven wrong many times before. For example, most modern doctors do not use bloodletting to reduce fever anymore. But once it was commonly accepted as scientific. Most modern scientists back in the day thought that proteins were responsible for genetic activity, when later it was discovered to be DNA instead.


Funny, religion has been proven wrong many times before. People used to go out of their way to kill people (The Crusades) in the name of God, when all they did was plunder. And just because Science is an evolving study of life doesn't mean it can't be wrong. I mean, hey, I used to think Santa was real. And Scientists used to think that protiens were responsible for genetics.

The egg came first. I mean, the way ameobas evolved and animal life evolved, it's completley reasonable to think a creature may have laid an egg.

OR, the egg just formed out of mixed genetics and birthed the egg that made the chicken.

Typist, go wield you boner for God somewhere else.

Mal

[AasumDude]

Point #1: Nobody said that we're talking chicken or chicken egg.

Title of topic: Chicken or the Egg Discussion

:roll:

EDIT: and i really like the example of the crucades (post above). Apparently they prooved that Jesus never actually rode into Jerusalem on a donkey in he first place, but they added that in by the 70BC church to make it seem like the most possible prophacies were true. Comments on this, anyone?

[Moogy]

My cock came first.

[TheTypist]

How would the 70 B.C. church know what Jesus did? He wasn't around yet. The prophecies concerning Jesus were as specific as prophecies would get. If the church really wanted to fake them, they would make the prophecies more vague, and more like the messages found on fortune cookies. Then, no matter what happened they would be able to make some weird metaphorical fufillment. But that's not what happened.

Mal, I'm really doubting that you read my post. I already used the protein-genetics example as an example of how science was wrong. You even quoted it.

The Crusades were a horrible deal. And even today people do things in the name of God that aren't within God's will. It is true that many people flying under the banner of Christianity will be completely off, like King Saul was before he was Paul. But you know what? Even Jesus proved religion wrong when he was walking around on Earth. Don't you know how He let those religious leaders have it? So religion has been proven wrong, but never God.

In fact, the actual science behind creation has never been proven wrong before either. Creation was completely accepted by science until someone decided to try and find a way through science that would "free" people from morals, start the sexual revolution and begin the spread of AIDS.

Thus, Evolution was born. Keep in mind that Evolution was formed to intentionally try and kick out creation. It started a little while before, actually, when a 19th century geologist, Charles Lyell, wrote that he aimed to "free the science from Moses." Now that doesn't sound as impartial and objective as science usually makes itself out to be.

Mal, go take your punctuated equilirbium ideas and flush them down the toilet.

Every single organism on the planet has genes that are 100% dedicated to producing another organism of the same kind. The idea of a bird with feathers to be born out of some other animal is ridiculous. The genetic code would have to make very specific quantum leaps. The chances of this happening are unimaginably slim, since (1)mutations are pretty rare in the first place, (2) most mutations are harmful and (3) mutations happen on a very small scale and could not possibly be enough to change species.

And if that's not enough for you, we still have to worry about the poor lonely chicken that has NO ONE TO MATE W/

[MalReynolds]

Frogs in captivity have been known to change sex and produce children that way. Hell, if you've seen Jurassic Park you know this, so it's not too insane to think it could happen with chickens. And yes, I read all of you post. That's why I quoted it and said that it's okay for a branch of science is wrong. And I really doubt that evolution just came around to thrown religion out the window. Espcecially because people wanted to be free from morals.

That just sounds like some conspiracy theory.

Once again, Typist: Boner, God, Elsewhere.

Mal

[iced_fetto]

Dog breeding too, where man holds the power!

[DonCasablanca]

Please, understand genetics first, Typist. As I suggested in the last thread, go to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov and search "books" (free textbooks online) for the facts of genetic variability. Perhaps you don't understand how long it took for us to evolve the elaborate repair systems we need to protect against this incredible rate of mutation. Maybe you should find out what cancer is while you're at it, to see what happens when that system, even with its many redundancies, fails.

You are not talking about science. Perhaps you might accept that, after all, science is what real scientists do. Describe the research team that revealed the mechanism by which all the earth's variety of creatures appeared spontaneously. Oh, did they work at Oxford, or was it Johns Hopkins? What was their control, Buddhism? And their variable -- God's mood at the time?

Much of science is directed towards testing every tenet of long-held theories -- we've redefined gravity countless times. But the difference I see here is that scientists (Remember? The people who make up the field of science?) use the scientific method to offer new understandings of things like evolution.

You can't just throw out un-cited claims, thinking to prove us wrong, unless you are willing to engage science and offer experimental evidence that re-explains these natural processes. Otherwise, what you are doing is perverting religion, as if it was written as a science textbook.

Of course, it's you who thinks I'm reading the Bible as a collection of
"fortune cookie notes". Well, enjoy you're textbook -- the difference is, of course, that fortune cookie advice like "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" is of immense practical utility to the purpose at which it aims: the living of ones life. Whereas, a reading like "6000 years ago all of the creatures of the earth appeared spontaneously and will remain unchanged until Judgment Day" would be of, unfortunately, ABSOLUTELY NO USE to the topic to which you ascribe it: science.

Because it isn't science.

Oh, you probably made e. coli produce green flourescent protein in Biology class by transforming them with a plasmid. But wait, e. coli don't glow green! And what's that -- you use only the tools nature provides?! Restriction enzymes, plasmids, polymerases? Oh well, you probably just found a long-lost colony of green e. coli that was created with all the rest 6000 years ago. That's a good hypothesis, I think I'll call it science.

[DonCasablanca]

And Popeyes is, after all, far better than KFC. Now THAT'S scientific.

[tnyhwk900]

egg

thread over

[TheTypist]

...Much of science is directed towards testing every tenet of long-held theories -- we've redefined gravity countless times. But the difference I see here is that scientists (Remember? The people who make up the field of science?) use the scientific method to offer new understandings of things like evolution.

...You can't just throw out un-cited claims, thinking to prove us wrong, unless you are willing to engage science and offer experimental evidence that re-explains these natural processes. Otherwise, what you are doing is perverting religion, as if it was written as a science textbook.

Because it [religion] isn't science.

Oh, you probably made e. coli produce green flourescent protein in Biology class by transforming them with a plasmid. But wait, e. coli don't glow green! And what's that -- you use only the tools nature provides?! Restriction enzymes, plasmids, polymerases? Oh well, you probably just found a long-lost colony of green e. coli that was created with all the rest 6000 years ago. That's a good hypothesis, I think I'll call it science.

Hey, I did insert the pGLO plasmid into the e. coli! And it turned green! But you know what it didn't do? It didn't turn multicellular or grow gills and start swimming around.

Obviously cancer (which is, by the way, encouraged by a lack of the vitamin B17) and such is an example of genetic mutation, but it is not an example of a good one. And it definitely isn't an example of a mutation that would cause a change between species. Now certainly, a bunch of bacteria will be able to evolve traits to be able to resist some type of fungus that we humans throw at it. But that does not mean we can assume the existence of macroevolution.

Now it's very interesting how you mention the scientific method, since when it comes to [Macro]evolution it seems like your otherwise reasonable scientists want have a conclusion in mind before they even think of a hypothesis!

Baloney, you say? Not quite. Remember that guy I mentioned, Charles Lyell, who by saying he wanted to "free the science from Moses" effectively showed he was biased? Well he wrote a book called "Princicles of Geology," which supposed that one could explain everything that has happened to the Earth by looking at present observable processes. This biased book was read by Darwin after he climbed aboard the Beagle. Darwin based many of his concepts on the implications of that book.

It pains me to hear you rule out Creation as not scientific. Thermodynamics demand that over time things decay, and that energy and mass cannot come from nothing. But most importantly science revolves around the concept of cause and effect. The effects are plain to see, and the cause cannot be nothing. Creation is the effect of a Creator, and a design is the product of a Designer.

Having faith in Evolution is having faith that the miracle of life in all of its complexity has no real cause, but acknowledging Creation acknowledges the One who performed that miracle: God. Nothing was based on how He was feeling at the time because He is forever unchanging. And I find that pretty reassuring.

[hatakikakashi]

The egg came first. Dinosaurs and reptiles and fish have all been laying eggs millions of years before the chicken came along.

[TheTypist]

See, we've gotten past the point where reading just the first few posts and the last few posts will really do any good if you want to jump into the conversation.

[magister_negi_magi]

The egg came first. Kakashi stated the same reason. Dinosaurs and reptiles have been laying eggs forever. We all know that birds are descendants of reptiles. The chicken comes from a branch of bird family, and henceforth lays eggs. There was no chicken, just an egg that produced a creature that eventually evolved into the chicken. Now everyone shut up.

[ramonesfan]

I've read this somewhere.... No matter what you believe, the chicken came first. If you believe in creation, some great diety put a chicken on earth. If you beleave in evolution, some "almost" chicken laid and "almost" chicken egg. But when the egg hatched a modern chicken came out.

[Squeek]

This thread die long ago due to the fact that it had been solved already. STOP BUMPING IT.

Ramones, you just proved yourself wrong. You say some "almost" chicken laid a chicken egg. Well, what comes from the egg? The chicken. But it came from the egg. Therefore, the egg came first.

~Squeek

[MonkeyFoo]

Indeed. All of the points that have any integrity to them were covered back when I posted on page 4. Lock it up.

[ramonesfan]

Squeek, the modern chicken came from an egg. But it was a modern chicken egg. If you mean eggs in general, yes of course the egg came first by thousands of years. If you mean a modern chicken egg, then the chicken came first because it was born from an "almost" chicken egg

[blargherness]

If you mean a modern chicken egg, then the chicken came first because it was born from an "almost" chicken egg
think about what you said. seriously. if there was an "almost" chicken egg and a chicken came out, it obviously TURNED into a chicken egg BEFORE it had hatched, unless the mutation happened all at once during the hatch, which i doubt. in other words, what your saying is it mutated IN the egg, and that MADE it a CHICKEN egg, and not an "almost" chicken egg, BEFORE it hatched. egg before hatch/chicken. and also look at monkeyfoo's post on page 4, it made some of the most sense to me. especially that creationist thing.
And yes, this topic is old and answered so let it be locked.

[ramonesfan]

I stand by with what I said. This "almost" chicken laid an egg right? Yes. So that means this egg came from the "almost" chicken. Because it came from the "almost" chicken, it is an "almost" chicken egg. But inside this egg is a modern chicken.

I understand what all of you mean. I classify the egg from what animal it came from, not the animal inside of it.

Let's say a chicken lays an egg. When the egg hatches, a robin comes out (yes, I do know htis isn't possible.) If you ask me, I'd say that a robin came out of a chicken egg. But from what you are saying, this chicken layed a robin egg.

[Squeek]

The species doesn't mutate once it's in an egg. Nothing can magically change from its egg-stage to its birth.

The change occurs in the pre-egg stage when the species is still a zygote.

The thread is over.

~Squeek

[ramonesfan]

I never said the species mutated while it was in the egg did I? No. I'm saying it came from the other chicken-like thing's egg.

[jewpinthethird]

I never said the species mutated while it was in the egg did I? No. I'm saying it came from the other chicken-like thing's egg.

An almost-chicken is not a chicken. That's like calling a B+ an "Almost A." Is it an A? NO! It is a B.

Evolution: The Egg.

Creation: The Chicken.

Thread Over.