Chicken/Egg Solved

[polish]

Genetic material does not change during an animal’s life. Therefore, the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must first have existed as an embryo inside an egg.
“Therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg,” he said. “So I would conclude that the egg came first.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2196880,00.html
It was the Egg

[dre1222]

Now maybe he can solve why the chicken crossed the road.

[Slotback]

Doubtful.

[Vlyrock]

Genetic material doesn't change...good. But why does that prove the egg? It could be either since it would've been the same material as an egg or chicken. If the chicken existed first, she'd lay an egg with the same genetic material to make more chickens. Seems like they're reaching for a conclusion.

And...if it was an egg -- where'd the egg come from?

[polish]

Genetic material doesn't change...good. But why does that prove the egg? It could be either since it would've been the same material as an egg or chicken. If the chicken existed first, she'd lay an egg with the same genetic material to make more chickens. Seems like they're reaching for a conclusion.

And...if it was an egg -- where'd the egg come from?

A mother does not give idential DNA to its offspring. It will be close, but there can be mutations. This can't happen to a live chicken and only to what is inside an egg. Therefore the first true chicken had to come from the egg. What laid that egg would be a close relative, but not a true chicken. I swear you seriously have trouble with comprehension

[Vlyrock]

I swear you seriously have trouble with comprehension
Okay, let me explain it so you can see where I'm coming from. Maybe then you'll realize I'm not the one with comprehension issues.

Mr. I Comprehend Everything, if the chicken existed first (say created by God) or appearing at the start of time -- then it doesn't prove the egg came first.

The assumption they're relying on is that whatever was first, was born from something (which in this case would be an egg) -- which begs the question why even research it if you're going to assume that the start of the animal was an egg?

All they've proven is that genetic material stays the same from birth to death. It doesn't prove where it all started. And bring in radiation and other factors that do alter DNA -- and yes, it can happen in a live animal/chicken.

[polish]

Okay, let me explain it so you can see where I'm coming from. Maybe then you'll realize I'm not the one with comprehension issues.

Mr. I Comprehend Everything, if the chicken existed first (say created by God) or appearing at the start of time -- then it doesn't prove the egg came first.
Everything evolved from something. It started from various micro-organisms (and even before that but that gets complicated so we will leave it there). I think thats pretty well proven. You can say God put that in motion, but if you don't believe evolution occured, then I don't need to waste my time with a looney. Animals just don't poof out of the air.

The assumption they're relying on is that whatever was first, was born from something (which in this case would be an egg) -- which begs the question why even research it if you're going to assume that the start of the animal was an egg?

First off thats not the assumption, they are relying on. They are saying there is a mountain of evidence that evolution occured in all animals. From micro-organism all the way to the chicken there was evolution. OK what they are saying is the first chicken had to come from egg because it had to mutate and its impossible to do and pass on those genes outside the egg. Whatever came right before the chicken had to lay an egg which had the proper genetic mutations in order to beclassified as a modern chicken

All they've proven is that genetic material stays the same from birth to death. It doesn't prove where it all started.
Like I said if your a wackjob who believes evolution never occured and God made every animal some time ago, I can't help you. If genetic material is the same birth to death, the only way it can change is pre-birth. You'd have to argue God made a chicken and stuck him here, which is preposterious.

And bring in radiation and other factors that do alter DNA -- and yes, it can happen in a live animal/chicken.
Thats is true. However in doing reserch on Japanese, Chernobyl, and other victims of radiation exposure have found that only the few people who actually went in directly after Chernobyl's meltdown and cleaned it up had problems. In no other human cases has an offspring recieved DNA that is different because of the radiation. The people afterwards have had some slight changes but their children did not show those changes. It takes alot of direct contact to do and I highly doubt there was that much radiation natually occuring. That and then you have to assume that every animal that evolved did so because of radiation. Hell the Galapagos must be damn near a nuclear waste storage facility if you assumption is true.

[Vlyrock]

First of all, I do believe that God can make animals appear like poof. If he's an all-powerful God, then he can do whatever he wants. If you believe Adam and Eve were created by God as opposed from being birthed from monkeys, then God can make things go poof. But that's a debate between evolution and creationism...best saved for another thread.

My point is that if everything is birthed from something else, it can still be altered while living. And the big hole in the everything is birthed from something else theory is that you can go back and back and back, but somewhere at some point, there had to be a first. And that first had to go "poof" and appear.

That's the whole reason that the egg vs chicken debate is unsolveable and I'm not convinced that the research done by the scientists in the article is proof enough to come to the conclusion they did.

[polish]

My point is that if everything is birthed from something else, it can still be altered while living. And the big hole in the everything is birthed from something else theory is that you can go back and back and back, but somewhere at some point, there had to be a first. And that first had to go "poof" and appear.

Your ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! AND you proved my point!

1. There is "NO BIG HOLE" in my arguement (when i said God put it in motion aka he started it)
I agree with you God started everything in motion, that's faith, but I believe it. But after he started the universe, things were set in motion and the way we find out how this occurs is science. Evolution is scientifically accurate. Just look at the evidence.

It had to start at a point, that is fact. However when you watch the cosmos, you see how stars are formed or planets etc. They form through physics and attraction of particles. It started at the smallest things like neutrinos and quarks and other tiny particles. Now lets say God had a role, He had to create the beginning, which are the particles and set them on a course. We know this because research has proven this to be the case. From this you can assume either God must have started the world in this way or religion is wrong and is started some other way. I choose to believe it was God. Either way, a chicken did not just pop up out of thin air

If you believe Genesis word for word, Chicken and dinos and every other species lived at the same time and for only a few thousand years. If you lived in pre-17th centruy I could see you believing that, but my gosh.


Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the late Pope John Paul II said, "New knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."


I guarentee you, he forgot more about religon, than you ever dreamed of knowing.

[CaliHornia]

ONe would think they'd have come about this sooner, given that it involves a relatively simple principle--whatever you are born/hatched as is what you are.

Therefore it had to be the egg first.

All they've proven is that genetic material stays the same from birth to death. It doesn't prove where it all started.

This is actually the point above exactly. If you're a chicken when you're hatched, then the egg comes first because that's what you came from.