Chicken or the Egg Discussion

[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.