Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:Doesn't anyone else see the issue this causes for evolution? Or am I the only one who sees this?

Would someone above my simple layman pay grade please explain what I'm missing?

From an evolutionary standpoint it is explained thusly (summarized from here):

- Reptiles are said to be the first "inventors" of the egg shell. It provided an evolutionary advantage to protect offspring outside of the body.
- Birds evolved from reptiles and retained the production of egg shells and laying of eggs
- Most mammals evolved to retain the embryo in the mother's womb, there was no evolutionary advantage for egg shells so they were dropped (a process called viviparity).

That's really it in a nutshell (pun very much intended ).

Now of course we can keep asking the same question with reptiles instead of birds and that will lead nowhere quick (or will stop all the way back with the first living cell).

Byblos,

While that article told me everything I ever really wanted to know about eggs from an evolution perspective, it does nothing to answer my question.

From an evolutionary perspective, What came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?

I don't care if some non chicken egg came before a chicken, because birds evolved from reptiles. I'm specifically talking about a chicken egg.

Capisce?

The most basic answer is that 2 junglefowls produced a fertilized egg with enough mutations in the DNA from which the first chicken came whose offspring were domesticated. It's a bit simplistic but to answer your question it would obviously have to be the egg.

Daniel wrote:
Not knowing! you got to be kidding right, even my children could answer this basic question, before reptiles became birds they laid eggs and then they evolved feathers, beaks, wings etc..... and low and behold they eventually became birds, and then one day after millions of generations and mutations a chicken was laid. Think of it like this Rick, you create a new breed of chicken through selective breeding, what came first the new breed or the egg. lol

Daniel,

The new breed and the old breed are both chickens! We are not having a chicken egg being laid out of a non-chicken.


I understand the basics of evolution as far as how birds are supposed to have evolved from reptiles. I'm asking for an explanation of how the first chicken came to be. Telling me that over millions of years, birds evolved from reptiles, and chickens evolved from other birds, does nothing to answer my question.

Proinsias wrote:

RickD wrote:I don't think you understand what I'm asking. Specifically from an evolutionary pov, what came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?

From science, we know all chickens come from chicken eggs. And we also know that all chicken eggs come from chickens.

Sounds like a mind bending paradox on the same level as dividing by zero.

I think that's the point of the chicken or the egg, it hurts the head.

Part of the problem, or joy of it, is that the chicken is defined not so much by the species it belongs to in the evolutionary sense but by the idea that a chicken is something which has been domesticated by humans, Gallus gallus domesticus.

In light of the above, I'll do a 180 on my previous post and make the claim that the chicken came first as no one could domestic an egg...........but wait a minute, isn't incubating an egg domesticating it? Doh

Stumped someone else, I see.

Daniel wrote:
It's not a contradiction, both answers are true.

So,
1) neither came first.
And
2)the egg came first.

That's not a contradiction, and both 1 and 2 are true?

Is that what you're saying?

Byblos wrote:
The most basic answer is that 2 junglefowls produced a fertilized egg with enough mutations in the DNA from which the first chicken came whose offspring were domesticated. It's a bit simplistic but to answer your question it would obviously have to be the egg.

I know you said it's a simple/basic answer, but is that how it happened according to evolution?

RickD wrote:

Daniel wrote:
It's not a contradiction, both answers are true.

So,
1) neither came first.
And
2)the egg came first.

That's not a contradiction, and both 1 and 2 are true?

Is that what you're saying?

Like I said the Chicken is the egg but also the egg came first, so depending on how you want to view it, both are true.

RickD wrote:

Daniel wrote:
Not knowing! you got to be kidding right, even my children could answer this basic question, before reptiles became birds they laid eggs and then they evolved feathers, beaks, wings etc..... and low and behold they eventually became birds, and then one day after millions of generations and mutations a chicken was laid. Think of it like this Rick, you create a new breed of chicken through selective breeding, what came first the new breed or the egg. lol

Daniel,

The new breed and the old breed are both chickens! We are not having a chicken egg being laid out of a non-chicken.


I understand the basics of evolution as far as how birds are supposed to have evolved from reptiles. I'm asking for an explanation of how the first chicken came to be. Telling me that over millions of years, birds evolved from reptiles, and chickens evolved from other birds, does nothing to answer my question.

But what came first the new breed or the egg?? It is the exact same question as you are asking, if a breed of chicken is produced from another breed of chicken it is the exact same as if a chicken came from it's ancestor (whatever that may be), evolution works the same way on both the marco and mirco levels.

The Chicken has always laid eggs, in all it's previous forms before it even became a "chicken".

Neither came first and the egg came first.............

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Daniel wrote:
It's not a contradiction, both answers are true.

So,
1) neither came first.
And
2)the egg came first.

That's not a contradiction, and both 1 and 2 are true?

Is that what you're saying?

Like I said the Chicken is the egg but also the egg came first, so depending on how you want to view it, both are true.

So, ultimately you're going with the egg came first, and the explanation in your link, that two non chickens mated and the first chicken?
From the link:

That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/g ... tion85.htm

But what came first the new breed or the egg?? It is the exact same question as you are asking, if a breed of chicken is produced from another breed of chicken it is the exact same as if a chicken came from it's ancestor (whatever that may be), evolution works the same way on both the marco and mirco levels.

You sure about that? Because I have no problem with a chicken egg coming from another type of chicken. But saying a chicken egg comes directly from a non chicken, is not the same.

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Daniel wrote:
It's not a contradiction, both answers are true.

So,
1) neither came first.
And
2)the egg came first.

That's not a contradiction, and both 1 and 2 are true?

Is that what you're saying?

Like I said the Chicken is the egg but also the egg came first, so depending on how you want to view it, both are true.

So, ultimately you're going with the egg came first, and the explanation in your link, that two non chickens mated and the first chicken?
From the link:

That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/g ... tion85.htm

A chicken didn't become a chicken until we selectively bred it from a wild fowl, so yes over long periods of selective breeding the first modern domesticated chicken had all the genetic information required and came from an egg, but it is the population that evolved and not a single chicken. So really the population came from an egg.

I would say that there was an egg. It was not a chicken egg because Chickens had not come onto the scene yet. This was to be the first chicken. What laid it - a bird or creature that was similar to what the chicken would be but could not really be classed as one. Then some sort of mutation happened while the fetus was developing that led to something being hatched that was the first chicken because it had enough fundamental differences from its parent to warrant being a different species.

That would be my take on it. Was any of this observed - nope. Did this actually happen - who knows. But if evolution was true that would be my guess on how it happened.

Is evolution true.......well..........who knows.

Imagine how good that first chicken and egg would have tasted.
Definitely no added hormones. Truly free range.
It's lucky I didn't exist when it came into being.
There might not be any chickens today.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:Just been thinking late at night when I should be sleeping.

According to evolution, what came first, the chicken or the egg? And why?

The egg in theory because the "new chicken" species would have had to have been BORN new, it would not have "mutated" during it's life time to be a "chicken" and then lay an egg with a "chicken" inside it.
It would have to have been the "first laid" of a new species.
So the Egg came first, it just wasn't laid by the same species of chicken as what is in the egg.
Supposedly.

Ok, I'm hoping you or someone can explain this further.
Since evolution is about science, and what can be shown by science, is it possible, scientifically, to show that a different species of bird could reproduce a species that is different than itself, as you're suggesting?

In other words, we have a male bird species x that mates with female bird species x, and it produces a chicken egg? Does this make sense to anyone?

And it would have to have been something other than a different species of chicken at one point. Because that wouldn't answer the question. A different species of chicken is still a chicken.

No, what you have is a male (with a slight mutation perhaps) reproducing with a female (with a slight mutation perhaps, doesn't matter which has it or both) and their offspring comes out as a mutated version of both and because it can't breed with its original species ( but can breed), it is a new one .

Of course the breeding things is very rough way at understanding how to differentiate species and is NOT done by geneticists, they relay on genetic codes now.

EX: it is theorized that homo sapiens mated with neanderthals so we have the case of two different species that could have mated.

So the whole reproductive category is really just a very simple and crude way to understand when a group emerges from another as a different species.

Kurieuo wrote:Imagine how good that first chicken and egg would have tasted.
Definitely no added hormones. Truly free range.
It's lucky I didn't exist when it came into being.
There might not be any chickens today.

Just remember, the sooner all the animals are extinct
the sooner we will find out where their money is hidden.

Based on the law of biogenesis which is science.We know life can only come from life so based on this and then based on our knowledge about reproduction there would have had to have been atleast two chickens a male and a female that can reproduce first before the eggs.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Imagine how good that first chicken and egg would have tasted.
Definitely no added hormones. Truly free range.
It's lucky I didn't exist when it came into being.
There might not be any chickens today.

Just remember, the sooner all the animals are extinct
the sooner we will find out where their money is hidden.

That can happen -- all the animals become extinct?
Wouldn't they just adapt. According to environmental pressures, selected mutations, all that.

So I wouldn't be to concerned.
It's not like we're above the natural order.
Nature has a way of keeping a balance it seems.