which came first...the chicken or the egg?
#26
Posted 28 May 2007 - 07:00 AM
#27
Posted 28 May 2007 - 10:44 PM
Now, if you want evidence on divine creation, talk to a mathematician. They will be glad to describe to you the proportions and odds of things going right so as to support life. The Privelaged Planet is an excellent movie that goes over hundreds of reasons as to why things had to be just the way they are, and sometimes even filling screens with numbers, and then saying multiple that by the stars in the universe, and that's how big the odds are. Math is only little of the evidence available though, the Bible is even better. Except I don't have time to discuss why the Bible is relevant, including how historically accurate it is, how it compares to other books scientists love to rely on, how it's the best selling book ever documented by mankind, etc. etc.
Don't you know? All of us atheists worship Athe! Of course we believe in something. =p
Anyway, I believe that the egg came first.
Also, Josh, I would love to have a discussion with you soon. Friendly debating and such.
#28
Posted 29 May 2007 - 05:42 AM
If asexual, then mutation during development made a pseudochicken egg to a chicken egg.
#29
Posted 29 May 2007 - 12:03 PM
#30
Posted 30 May 2007 - 01:38 AM
Edited by fruglemonkey, 30 May 2007 - 01:38 AM.
#31
Posted 30 May 2007 - 04:36 AM
=[ Damn capped net.
Edit: Read the article, and I gotta say, that's one hell of a lucky cow. It has good milk, AND, it's genes haven't changed so far to the point that it's children don't get the genes. Let's just hope that its milk isn't chockablock full of carcinogens.
Oh, and Kitsune, in this case, wouldn't this species of cow eventually die out, because lesser fat = smaller, weaker babies? Hehe, human intervention ftw!
Edited by fruglemonkey, 30 May 2007 - 04:43 AM.
#32
Posted 30 May 2007 - 04:45 AM
So it's simple.
What came first was the color black. So they probably invented white next.
So that means the eggs came first.
Besides you can’t get a chicken without an egg. So how can the chicken come first if there was no egg? =0
Black and white are shades.
Black = All the colors of the rainbow.
#33
Posted 30 May 2007 - 08:31 AM
Black = All the colors of the rainbow.
Colors that we see, as in light waves, are different. White contains all of them and black is the absence of any color.
Back to egg dilemma, As i said earlier, small changes over time led to a chicken, thats my opinion.
#34
Posted 30 May 2007 - 08:54 AM
#35
Posted 05 July 2007 - 07:53 PM
#36
Posted 05 July 2007 - 08:01 PM
and oh yeah i believe in evolution
#37
Posted 05 July 2007 - 08:08 PM
and oh yeah i believe in evolution
either way they both came from somewhere...what do u guys think can lay a chicken egg thats not a chicken?
#38
Posted 05 July 2007 - 10:23 PM
some anchient realative of a chicken.. maybe some other bird...*shrug*
and you're right evrything does come from somewhere... the fisrt multicellular organizms formed by symbiosis... which is when unicellular organizms bind to make multicellular organizms.. and it went on from there
#39
Posted 06 July 2007 - 01:28 PM
Mutations occur as an embryo thus the egg came first.
And to answer your question, an ancestor of the chicken or pseudochicken mates and lays a chickn egg (chicken not pseudochicken because of the mutations that occurred).
Im not gonna front i dont know s*** about this but help me understand.Where did the embryo come from n what is to stop the chicken from mutanting again or has it already.
#40
Posted 06 July 2007 - 03:25 PM
Chickens are always mutating.
Most severe mutations are lethal, and the non-lethal ones rarely have any phenotypic effect.
But, to simplify it for you:
Dinosaurs lived before chickens.
Dinosaurs laid eggs.
Therefore, eggs came before chickens.
#41
Posted 06 July 2007 - 03:41 PM
Most severe mutations are lethal, and the non-lethal ones rarely have any phenotypic effect.
But, to simplify it for you:
Dinosaurs lived before chickens.
Dinosaurs laid eggs.
Therefore, eggs came before chickens.
agreed.. even though i'm sure the whole point of this was to decide which came first the chicken or the CHICKEN egg... but they weren't specific enough so i say the egg as well
#42
Posted 08 July 2007 - 04:10 AM
#43
Posted 08 July 2007 - 04:13 AM
#44
Posted 08 July 2007 - 07:13 AM
Then there are minor mutations (which all identical twins have) like say a freckle, or something like that which have no effect at all.
Then there are the mutations which are an advantage. For example, lets say a bird pecks into small holes in trees to get bugs inside. Suddenly there is a food shortage, and only birds with very thin beaks are able to get food because they can get into the smaller holes which the bigger beaked birds can't. The smaller beaks were originally a mutation which had no advantage until starvation was occurring thus most bigger beaked birds died, leaving the smaller beaked birds.
Those mutations originally occur because while a chick is developing something didn't quite work transfer properly when DNA was being copied and an error occurs.
Ok so back to the story. So the 2 almost-chickens mate and lay and egg that ends up mutating slightly or dramatically inside the egg. Because of the changes it is no longer and almost-chicken embryo but a chicken embryo which ends up as a chicken. Because it is the first of its species it will need to mate with an almost-chicken to reproduce. If enough of the advantageous traits get passed on, that is how the species develops.
Now, extremely high ionising radiation will alter your DNA after embryonic form. That is the only exception to the rule I know of. And I don't know of... any advantageous radiation based mutations.. more likely it's just gonna kill ya
However if you do not believe in any form of evolution, you will simply never agree with this.
I did this from memory so... please correct any inaccuracies or left something out.
Other than the assertion that post-embryonic mutations occur only because of high energy radiation, that's a spiffing explanation
Loads of thing cause mutation all the time. Even ageing causes some degree of nucleic alteration
#45
Posted 28 August 2007 - 02:50 PM
#46
Posted 28 August 2007 - 03:43 PM
OMG I actually hypothesized exactly that when I was 12
Edited by FlashGM, 28 August 2007 - 03:51 PM.
#47
Posted 12 September 2007 - 06:00 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users



