Chicken or the Egg Discussion - Page 2

**Squeek** · 03-9-2005, 04:20 PM

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** · 03-9-2005, 04:23 PM

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** · 03-9-2005, 05:10 PM

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** · 03-9-2005, 05:18 PM

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** · 03-9-2005, 05:49 PM

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** · 03-9-2005, 05:54 PM

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 · 03-9-2005, 05:57 PM

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

**alainbryden** · 03-9-2005, 06:10 PM

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** · 03-9-2005, 06:17 PM

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** · 03-9-2005, 06:28 PM

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 · 03-22-2005, 04:13 PM

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 · 03-22-2005, 04:31 PM

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 · 03-23-2005, 09:20 AM

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 · 03-23-2005, 01:18 PM

Typist is back?

I remember you :>

TheTypist · 03-24-2005, 05:57 AM

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** · 03-24-2005, 07:25 AM

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 · 03-24-2005, 10:29 AM

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

**alainbryden** · 03-24-2005, 01:07 PM

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 · 03-24-2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

TheTypist · 03-25-2005, 07:43 AM

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.

03-9-2005, 05:10 PM	#23
alainbryden Seen your member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: noitacoL Posts: 2,873	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. __________________ ~NEIGH

03-9-2005, 05:49 PM	#25
alainbryden Seen your member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: noitacoL Posts: 2,873	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. __________________ ~NEIGH

03-9-2005, 06:10 PM	#28
alainbryden Seen your member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: noitacoL Posts: 2,873	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. __________________ ~NEIGH

03-9-2005, 06:28 PM	#30
alainbryden Seen your member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: noitacoL Posts: 2,873	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. __________________ ~NEIGH

03-23-2005, 09:20 AM	#33
TheTypist FFR Player Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 126	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. __________________ Joy is not the absence of sorrow but the presence of God -Nick Bank

03-9-2005, 04:20 PM	#21
Squeek let it snow~ Join Date: Jan 2004 Age: 39 Posts: 14,444	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

03-9-2005, 04:23 PM	#22
talisman Resident Penguin Join Date: May 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 4,598	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.

03-9-2005, 05:18 PM	#24
talisman Resident Penguin Join Date: May 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 4,598	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.

03-9-2005, 05:54 PM	#26
talisman Resident Penguin Join Date: May 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 4,598	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.

03-9-2005, 05:57 PM	#27
falconsfan14 Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: GiRRRRRRR!!! Age: 36 Posts: 2,183	its a matter of religion on where you believe all life came from. simple short answer

03-9-2005, 06:17 PM	#29
talisman Resident Penguin Join Date: May 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 4,598	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.

03-22-2005, 04:13 PM	#31
TehDoldrums FFR Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 12	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.

03-22-2005, 04:31 PM	#32
iced_fetto FFR Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 10	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

03-23-2005, 01:18 PM	#34
flypie743 FFR Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: fairyland Posts: 3,210	Typist is back? I remember you :> __________________ IF YOU ARE THE BOMB YOU WILL CLICK THIS and if you dont, you suck.

03-24-2005, 05:57 AM	#35
TheTypist FFR Player Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 126	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. __________________ Joy is not the absence of sorrow but the presence of God -Nick Bank

03-24-2005, 07:25 AM	#36
Squeek let it snow~ Join Date: Jan 2004 Age: 39 Posts: 14,444	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

03-24-2005, 10:29 AM	#37
TheTypist FFR Player Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 126	Well the Earth actually isn't 4.6 billion years old, more like, 6,000. That really doesn't allow for much mutation. __________________ Joy is not the absence of sorrow but the presence of God -Nick Bank

03-24-2005, 01:07 PM	#38
alainbryden Seen your member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: noitacoL Posts: 2,873	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. __________________ ~NEIGH

03-25-2005, 07:43 AM	#40
TheTypist FFR Player Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 126	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. __________________ Joy is not the absence of sorrow but the presence of God -Nick Bank

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)