Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 100

Thread: Which came first?

  1. #11
    Guardsman Gotmilk's Avatar
    Join Date
    31.12.2009
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonlord View Post
    The problem with using scientific data to back up any of these claims is that we have no data of the time when either chicken or egg first came about.

    Sure, many scientists have theories as to how everything came about, but those are just theories, and until we have access to a time machine, we have no idea what actually happened before recorded history.

    So, my answer to the question is: Who cares?
    Um science is dumb. Clearly God made the chicken first. Derp. Its obvious isn't it. I mean God wouldn't want to have to sit on that egg would he?

  2. #12
    Natarian Knight myrcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    24.04.2009
    Location
    In a tree. Somewhere in the US...
    Posts
    6,709

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Purple View Post
    She is a cat, she is allowed to do as she wishes

  3. #13
    Natarian Knight
    Join Date
    13.01.2009
    Location
    mbstokem
    Posts
    676

    Default


  4. #14
    Thorned Warrior
    Join Date
    21.11.2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    74

    Default

    The chicken

    1. an egg is a reproductive cell, which like an copy needs to have an original to produce.

    2. Mutations=myth: based on the false claim that random changes in the genetic code of plants or animals can produce new species or entirely new families of plants or animals.

    3. Fact: mutations can produce changes, but only within limits. Example: mutant fruit flies though malformed, are still fruit flies.

    4. Data gathered from 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw the conclusion regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species as such: "Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability."--Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany.

    5. According to the fossil record, all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.
    Last edited by zenobia; 30.11.2010 at 03:54.

  5. #15
    Natarian Knight REDSHEILD's Avatar
    Join Date
    18.07.2008
    Location
    Castor Prime; Capital Building
    Posts
    5,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    The chicken

    1. an egg is a reproductive cell, which like an copy needs to have an original to produce.
    Very good. Guess what? Chickens came after the first eggs, which were laid by reptiles. (Birds, you know, evolved from reptiles, and the two are actually quite similar.)

    2. Mutations=myth: based on the false claim that random changes in the genetic code of plants or animals can produce new species or entirely new families of plants or animals.
    Explain your reasoning, please.

    3. Fact: mutations can produce changes, but only within limits. Example: mutant fruit flies though malformed, are still fruit flies.
    See above.

    4. Data gathered from 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw the conclusion regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species as such: "Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability."--Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany.
    A scientist in what field? Who did the studies? Where is the data?

    5. According to the fossil record, all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.
    Oh please, I really want to see the evidence for this one.
    "SUUM TANTUM A PULPA VULNUS"-footman.
    Quote Originally Posted by sharpy View Post
    A message for Ramrod: Don't reproduce, ever.
    Quote Originally Posted by sharpy
    To REDSHEILD, if he happens to see this: I suppose I am a Grammar N*zi at heart.
    <(-_-)><(@-@)><(o.0)> <dragons.

  6. #16
    Thorned Warrior
    Join Date
    21.11.2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by REDSHEILD View Post
    Very good. Guess what? Chickens came after the first eggs, which were laid by reptiles. (Birds, you know, evolved from reptiles, and the two are actually quite similar.)




    Oh please, I really want to see the evidence for this one.
    The origin of the genetic code poses a massive chicken-and-egg problem that remains completely scrambled...because proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.

    That's where the fossil record proves you wrong.

    I guess you'd have to be a palaeontologist then. Of course, there are several research tools to find your own research. Hey, that could be your homework, if you reallywant to know the answers.
    But chances are you don't so why even ask?

    And that reptile, try explaining where he came from and so on. Oh, you probably think that's the same one that holds the 4 giant elephants that support the earth too.
    Anyway you'll just be a little puppy trying to chase his tail. Going round and round in circles. Because you can't give a "reasonable explanation" for the first cause.

  7. #17
    Utisz
    Guest

    Default

    I sort of believe it's a silly question as well but for a different reason, i.e. a demarcation problem, you can't ever really say where one species ends and another begins, it is a fuzzy line. Though obviously as already pointed out non-chicken eggs are definitively older.

    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    The origin of the genetic code poses a massive chicken-and-egg problem that remains completely scrambled...because proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.

    Anyway you'll just be a little puppy trying to chase his tail. Going round and round in circles. Because you can't give a "reasonable explanation" for the first cause.
    Actually DNA, depends on protein, which depend on RNA, which can self assemble, hence the RNA world hypothesis. Of course this is only one of many possible solutions to your DNA chicken and egg scenario. It is presumptuous (if I'm being polite) to assume just because an aspect of the world is poorly understood currently, that there is no possible explanation apart from the supernatural. God of the gap arguments have been proposed for essentially every phenomenon in nature from lightening to disease. Time has shown again and again that basing an argument on such premises is simply an invitation to be made to look foolish at a later date.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    2. Mutations=myth: based on the false claim that random changes in the genetic code of plants or animals can produce new species or entirely new families of plants or animals.

    3. Fact: mutations can produce changes, but only within limits. Example: mutant fruit flies though malformed, are still fruit flies.

    4. Data gathered from 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw the conclusion regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species as such: "Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability."--Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany.

    5. According to the fossil record, all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.
    Did any one else lol that in point two he states mutations are a myth, then in point three he states "FACT mutations can produce change? Because I sure as hell did.

    You can't just say something is a fact then quote some nobody scientist from Germany to back it up. The evidence for evolution (especially the genetic evidence) is overwhelming and scientists almost unanimously support the basic principals of evolutionary theory. For example the discovery institute started a petition a few years ago in support of ID. Out of a potential pool of millions of scientists they managed to drum up only 761 names. At the same time a competing petition in support of the theory of evolution obtained 1147 signatures by scientists named STEVE!

    Furthermore you completely misunderstand and mischaracterize the Cambrian explosion, which is fairly typical if your getting your information from a creationist propaganda site. As one example mammals who most people would consider a major group of animals did not appear on Earth until 300 million years after the Cambrian period. I'm also left to the assume that you consider a period of millions of years "sudden". Conveniently I have an anecdote to go along with this post, when the geneticist J. Haldane was asked what evidence could destroy his confidence in the theory of evolution J. Haldane replied simply "rabbits in the Precambrian", however to date no such rabbits have been found.

    *I also think most people would much rather have a light hearted conversation about chicken and eggs rather then listen to you make an idiot of yourself.
    Last edited by Utisz; 30.11.2010 at 21:37.

  8. #18
    Natarian Knight t7seven7t's Avatar
    Join Date
    18.08.2008
    Location
    Austraya
    Posts
    4,974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonlord View Post
    So, my answer to the question is: Who cares?
    You sir, are a genius!

  9. #19
    Natarian Knight xinjis's Avatar
    Join Date
    19.04.2010
    Location
    On my computer.
    Posts
    1,681

    Default

    Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence.
    A literal answer is obvious, as egg-laying species pre-date the existence of chickens.
    Quote Originally Posted by blue_lash View Post
    ((I dont know why but i m kinda starting to like the little brat ))

  10. #20
    Natarian Knight
    Join Date
    14.04.2009
    Posts
    649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by L.C.S. View Post
    The question does not say that the egg had to be a chicken egg, and eggs have been used since long before the chicken was around.

    But if you are wondering if the chicken came before the chicken egg, then it would still be the egg, as an egg birthing a chicken is a chicken egg. Not a dinosaur egg, not a fish egg, and not a Raptor-Jesus egg.
    Yeah of course I assumed we were speaking of chicken eggs. And the second paragraph illustrates my doubt. Do you call the egg chicken because it gives "birth" to chicken, or because it was laid by chicken? The answer to that gives the answer to the original question. In the former case, the egg was first, in the later, the chicken was first.

    Note: I had never said chicken so many times before. Chicken.

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •