Debate Chicken or egg?

What do you think that came first?

I'll post my thoughts later.

 

Well, I'm tempted to give that old, annoying answer ('Egg, of course. Remember the dinosaurs?'), but I wouldn't want to do that, now would I?

This is one of those debates that can go on a long time without us making very much progress, so I think I'll wait a little while before revealing all of my view points.

But- I think that before the chicken, there was something like a chicken that laid an egg that became the chicken we know today. Maybe this former chicken could do something that our chickens can't, and when the world moved on, that skill was no longer necessary, so the next generation began to lose it, until finally we end up with our chicken.

 

MT pretty much hit the nail on the head.

 

Yep, pretty obvious what came first.

 

... pretty much ended before it began... if only we thought like this during high school, would have made R.e pass by quicker rather than 3/4 of the class argue that it was an egg ¬.¬

Oh well

 

Uh... the egg would have come first, AoH... I'm not sure if you were taking the opposite stance in your post but it looks like it...

 

Dammit... yet again ive turned on the computer when drunk & missed out a bit... ::AHEM:: i was on the 3/4 side...

 

It is funny how one person says something even remotely smart and all of you agree with it. You little lemmings.

But I will tell you that MTs way of thinking is all wrong and anyone else who agrees. I was hoping for a good debate with actual evidence but apparently I cannot except that from any M2A members.

MT is wrong because with every little change the bird would look more like a chicken right? So you could actually call the bird a chicken thus thinking chicken came first. If it acts like a chicken and looks like a chicken chances are it is a chicken. But where did that chicken come from? an egg?

I like how everyone tries and use evolution as a bases for fact. Evolution is a theory and in most cases has never been proven. Because all the steps cannot be proven. Most scientist think that birds evolved from a feathered, scale creature. (I will find the name later, forgot it.) But how did it lose its scales and become a chicken? Evolution? but there is no actual proof of how it happened.

Just something to think about. Genesis 1:20 'And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'

 

As stated before, I hadn't as of yet revealed all of my view-points, I have a few trump cards, you might say.

As it is, this debate is meant to go unanswered. All we can do is theorize, and nobody 'wins'.

We have to remember that the book of Genesis was written a very, very long time ago, before we even had the theory of evolution and mutation resulting in species better adapted to survive on Earth. Also, we have to ask ourselves: 'Are we interpreting Genesis literally?'

In the end, this can come down to a religious debate. We have the Realians who would tell you that the chicken came not from an egg, but from the aliens. We have the Christians (although I am Christian, I do not interpret Genesis literally- this is a personal decision.), who will tell you that God made the chicken and the chicken made an egg. We have countless theories. All unfounded.

So, if the Theory of Evolution is unfounded, so is your comment about Genesis, Bash.

 

Well, pardon me, but... what do you think, and where is your proof?

 

We're lemmings because we share the same opinion???

Yeah, logic is... oh wait.

Cut the ad hominem attacks, Basher. Now, if you want a debate, get ready, because here it comes.

Maybe I should re-explain it.

Lets take "modern chicken". Now lets look at the "slightly less modern chicken". The very first modern chicken would have been born from slightly less modern chickens, AND IT CAME IN AN EGG. That particular egg type would have evolved with the chicken family, so this would have been the modern chicken egg.

BAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Basher, you're only betraying your lack of scientific knowledge. All of science is theories, the only time something is a law is when its become so well accepted and irrefutable that no opposition exists.

Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. The evidence is consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

The word "theory", in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
-That life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
-That life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
-That species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
-That natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
-Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.


The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas.

...Yes they can be. Fossil records.

...Yes there is. Fossil records. What, you think there's proof for God's 6 day creation of Earth?

So? Whoop de doo, a litany of horrors (The Old Testament) has a creation story. What about all the other creation stories? How are they any less valid?

Know what? I'm going to crush this debate before it even starts.

Behold, your creationist claims and arguments, crushed in one mighty index.

 

Neph, your Index is powerful indeed. Thank you for the link.

- Ark

 

I don't care if this thread is 'dead.' I need to have my say.

It could be because you follow the same idea without your own thoughts. You’re a Lemming more then likely so.

I was ready and waiting. I will add that I was hoping you would go off on creation with evolution.

"Come into my web." says Basher spider to the apparently Neph fly.

By your way of thinking every human alive would be a "modern human" *rolleyes*. Evolution is slow change remember. So any changes over time EVERY CHICKEN at that time would be the modern chicken. Here is an example with evolving of the human skull.


Homo Erectus is 'An extinct species of humans, regarded as an ancestor of Homo sapiens.' Definition curtsy of www.dictionary.com. I didn't live back then but it would still be human not "slightly modern human" which isn’t a way to say it. A human is a human like a chicken is a chicken.

Australopithecine is a humanlike primate. They could possible depending on what way you want to go either primate or human.

Do you catch my draft now? There aren’t any moderate or slightly moderate chickens by any standing. Definitions will prove that moderate or slightly moderate whatever are not valid.

*rolleyes* Just like you will soon.

With evolution still being a theory. Not everything has been proven.

You want facts here we go.

I will dispute evolution now.

The theory of evolution is just that -- a theory. According to "The American Heritage Dictionary," a theory is: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Evolution is a set of principles that tries to explain how life, in all its various forms, appeared on Earth. The theory of evolution succeeds in explaining why we see bacteria and mosquitoes becoming resistant to antibiotics and insecticides. It also successfully predicted, for example, that X-ray exposure would lead to thousands of mutations in fruit flies.

Many theories are works in progress, and evolution is one of them. There are several big questions that the theory of evolution cannot answer right now. This is not unusual. Newtonian physics worked really well for hundreds of years, and it still works well today for many types of problems.
In answering the open questions that still remain unsolved, the theory of evolution will either become complete or it will be replaced by a new theory that better explains the phenomena we see in nature. That is how the scientific process works.
Here are three common questions that are asked about the current theory of evolution:
• How does evolution add information to a genome to create progressively more complicated organisms?
• How is evolution able to bring about drastic changes so quickly?
• How could the first living cell arise spontaneously to get evolution started?

Now let us look one of these questions. Bare with me people this will prove one hole in evolution. Plus I am not going to do all. Not enough room. I will cut evolution down start at the beginning with a little help from my friends named ‘Cells.’

Question 3: Where Did the First Living Cell Come From?

In order for the principles of mutation and natural selection in the theory of evolution to work, there have to be living things for them to work on. Life must exist before it can to start diversifying. Life had to come from somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.

Could life arise spontaneously? Very doubtful. But let us dive in further.

For those who don’t know anything about cells please read How Cells Work you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria -- one of the simplest life forms in existence today -- is amazingly complex.

The first living cells had to possess:
• A cell wall
• The ability to maintain and expand the cell wall (grow)
• The ability to process "food" (other molecules floating outside the cell) to create energy
• The ability to split itself to reproduce
Otherwise, it is not really a cell and it is not really alive. To try to imagine a primordial cell with these capabilities spontaneously creating itself, it is helpful to consider some simplifying assumptions. For example:

• Perhaps the original energy molecule was very different from the mechanism found in living cells today, and the energy molecules happened to be abundant and free-floating in the environment. Therefore, the original cell would not have had to manufacture them.
• Perhaps the chemical composition of the Earth was conducive to the spontaneous production of protein chains, so the oceans were filled with unimaginable numbers of random chains and enzymes.
• Perhaps the first cell walls were naturally forming lipid spheres, and these spheres randomly entrapped different combinations of chemicals.
• Perhaps the first genetic blueprint was something other than DNA.
These examples do simplify the requirements for the "original cell," but it is still a long way to spontaneous generation of life which starts Evolution.

All this makes Evolution still a theory as a work in progress because it is not completed yet.

I ask you for proof of fossil records for early birds. But before you go looking please remember that the light, hollow bones of birds are not likely to survive as fossils.

Nice how you think that is my stance just because I stated:

Doesn’t mean it is my stance. *giggles at the web she left behind*

Do I need to repeat myself?

It is maybe over now. Depends on a few things.

Those interested in evolution and ways it doesn't work click below.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm

 

Then say it politely or don't say it at all.

I reached that conclusion from my own thoughts, Basher. MT simply beat me to posting it, and to post what would essentially be the same thing would be redundant.

Given that it's my favorite debate...

That's right Basher. Keep telling yourself that.

We basically are modern humans. If you don't think there are differences between current humanity and humanity at it's start, you're sadly mistaken.

By "modern chicken" I was trying to say "what we know as a chicken".

I know what that evolution looks like. But think about it. Trace the skull back far enough and you'll eventually hit a species which isn't human.

And a car is a car, but there are different types of car. Comparing a Ford Model T to a Ford Windstar is not smart.

You know, I'm still waiting for you to prove that chickens came first.

You still don't get it, do you? Go back far enough and the first "chicken" evolved from something else which was slightly different. And it came in an egg. Hence, the egg came first.

My source: Talkorigins.org
Your source: Howstuffworks.com

Readers, I invite you to go to both sites and find out exactly which one has more science.

You still don't get it, do you? All science is theory. Nothing can be "proven". Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in.

Mmm-hmm.

This will be good for a laugh.

Actually, it's both a fact and a theory. The process of evolution has been observed. This makes it a fact. The theory of evolution makes predictions which have been tested by every paleontological find over the last hundred years. This makes it a testable and reliable theory.

Copy 'n' paste, hoo-dilly-day, copy 'n' paste, be the real lemming all the way...

Nobody is refuting this.

Nobody is denying that.

No, really? We know, Basher.

Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. I don't see how hard a question that was.

Modern evolution theory accommadates both gradual and rapid change. Of course, this question doesn't provide any examples of "drastic changes" occuring in a short period of time. Odds they didn't bother considering reproduction rates and lifespan lengths.

It didn't. Life started with a molecule.

Not anymore.

I cut YOUR argument down with my little friend named "molecule."

All this invalidated by the fact that life started with a molecule.

Besides...

From: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_1.html

NOBODY IS DENYING THAT EVOLUTION CAN BE IMPROVED. THIS DOES NOT INVALIDATE IT. My God...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html

Done and done.

It would certainly imply it.

Oh, wow, what an amazing, quickly refuted web.

No, because I already shot down your arguments.

Like if you can dig up more pseudoscience?

Obviously you didn't even read the index I posted or you wouldn't have bothered with any of the questions.

For everyone interested in evolution, check http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

 

For those of you that are reading this & got lost... i shall simplify some points;
___________________________________________________
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you catch my draft now? There aren’t any moderate or slightly moderate chickens by any standing. Definitions will prove that moderate or slightly moderate whatever are not valid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You still don't get it, do you? Go back far enough and the first "chicken" evolved from something else which was slightly different. And it came in an egg. Hence, the egg came first.
___________________________________________________

As one of my drunken friends said to make sure he understood me;

First there was an animal called the (For joke sake) "N"
It gave birth to the animal "En" (Not straight away... give or take a few thousand years)
It gave birth to the "Ken" (Who ran away with Barbie... nah, i'll leave that part out :/ )
Gave birth to "Cken"
Blah blah blah "Icken"
// // // "Hicken"
Then finally this creature that was similar to the animal in question... gave birth to what we know as the "Chicken"

Hope that helps

___________________________________________________
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With evolution still being a theory. Not everything has been proven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You still don't get it, do you? All science is theory. Nothing can be "proven". Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in.
____________________________________________________

Theories & Science (Whichever word you wish to use)
are given to simply make people feel more secure about the goings on in the world... like telling a child What makes thunder to help them sleep... or as we only say what we have been taught we dont rightly know that thats all there is to it... which means i can use a silly example ; what those noises are in the night (Elves seem to be the most common story if you dont want to scare the lil buggers)


This has been a message of possible nonsense by moi

 

Science isn't to make people feel secure, it's so we can KNOW about things and use that knowledge to improve our lives.

 

Right right right... For those who Dont Know how to use science/gather proof to make the world a better place/ improve our lives, they use what they have learned from scientist folk to be abit more secure about the universe'ly goings on. Sheesh

 

Wtf. Did I miss something. I am so confused right now about all this theory stuff that I am just going to believe in evolution and leave it at that.

 

neither both came from a primodial ooze
:sweat2:

[berry]that theory of the ooze is commonly referred to as evolution. please understand what you're against and for before you speak out against the thing you are for.[/berry]