http://www.physorg.com/news67829669.html
From an 8th grader.
What an idiot.
The problem in his logic is that if genetic material remains the same then the egg that some unknown bird produced would have to be mostly the same (except for a mutation) thus there would not be enough difference between the two birds to say one is a chicken and the other is not. So the chicken came first.
To reach his conclusion there would have to enough genetic difference between the embryo in the egg and the bird that laid it. How many mutations would that be?
The problem in his logic is that if genetic material remains the same then the egg that some unknown bird produced would have to be mostly the same (except for a mutation) thus there would not be enough difference between the two birds to say one is a chicken and the other is not. So the chicken came first.
To reach his conclusion there would have to enough genetic difference between the embryo in the egg and the bird that laid it. How many mutations would that be?
i came to the same conclusion in a high school paper back in 1987
i wish i still had the paper he plagiarized me
i wish i still had the paper he plagiarized me
I guessed the egg a long time ago. It makes perfect sense. Who said it had to be a chicken egg? Fish laid eggs long before chickens. Eggs>Chickens
Stupid Scientists.
Thats like saying the baby came before the mother.
Thats like saying the baby came before the mother.
QUOTE
Thats like saying the baby came before the mother.
No, its not saying that at all.
It's saying a mother gave birth to an offspring of a different species.
Well duh, ive been saying that all my life.
The chicken'd ancester species layed an egg that was mutated, it hatched, breeded, etc add a some generations and random mutations and you have your every day chicken.
Let me guess that this article will be forgotten quickly, this is one of the Questions that we do not reallt want to know, this is the kind of Question that goes well as a wisecrack at a frat party.
It is kind of like the Question, "What came first the Hotdog or the Bun?"
"The Carrot or the Bunny?
"The Sciencetist or the Logic?"
It is kind of like the Question, "What came first the Hotdog or the Bun?"
"The Carrot or the Bunny?
"The Sciencetist or the Logic?"
This is ridicules. This is another one of those wasted studies that proves nothing. They never answered the question they just push it back onto another species that miraculously gave birth to a chick. Here is my question. If some other bird had the chicken egg then what came first, the bird that had the chicken egg, or the egg?
Silly boys,
The problem is the definition of a chicken. Mr Purdue's chickens don't look anything like my great great grandfather's birds. No No No the answer is and always has been.
Neither ... and both!
The problem is the definition of a chicken. Mr Purdue's chickens don't look anything like my great great grandfather's birds. No No No the answer is and always has been.
Neither ... and both!
DNA does change throughout the lifetime of all animals...
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=137
http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/features/telomeres/
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=137
http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/features/telomeres/
Why is it that scientists continue to be so stupid? If they'd simply take a moment to try and disprove Creationism, they'd find that they can't, which would then mean that the Chicken came first because it was created -- not evolved from some crazy green ooze.
His answer is wrong first because the question is a metaphor, and is not a specific question about an egg.
And the answer is the chicken, because brought back to the very creation of life, which is what the question represents, life must give birth to an egg, a cell must be created before it can divide to have a child.
His answer doesn't even mention that , at what point in the chickens evolution would one say ok this is a chicken and its parent weren't. The evolution would be much more of a grey area than that and wouldn't be so cut and dry.
I agree that this is a question a gr. 8 would ponder and I believe that I did at one point and am only drawing the answer from what I came up with many years ago. What a silly waste of time.
And the answer is the chicken, because brought back to the very creation of life, which is what the question represents, life must give birth to an egg, a cell must be created before it can divide to have a child.
His answer doesn't even mention that , at what point in the chickens evolution would one say ok this is a chicken and its parent weren't. The evolution would be much more of a grey area than that and wouldn't be so cut and dry.
I agree that this is a question a gr. 8 would ponder and I believe that I did at one point and am only drawing the answer from what I came up with many years ago. What a silly waste of time.
God didn't take eggs on the Ark. He took the chicken. So to answer your question, The chicken came first.
ah... just because the average person doesnt know the answer to these things doesnt mean that the answer wasnt known long ago...
an egg is a potential.. a chicken is a chicken...
therefore the egg comes first... sigh (this is soooo old... any bhuddists out there? cmon find the koan).
ok...
if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?
no
why?
because sound is a perception... not an actualilty... when no person is there, then all you get is pressure waves in a gas... thats not sound... if the pressure waves are between 10 and 20k hz and there is an ear... then what the BRAIN percieves is sound...
and one hand clapping?
man without woman?
light without dark?
nothing....
can we get past ancient philosopy hidden by relativism and perhaps go for the daily double?
an egg is a potential.. a chicken is a chicken...
therefore the egg comes first... sigh (this is soooo old... any bhuddists out there? cmon find the koan).
ok...
if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?
no
why?
because sound is a perception... not an actualilty... when no person is there, then all you get is pressure waves in a gas... thats not sound... if the pressure waves are between 10 and 20k hz and there is an ear... then what the BRAIN percieves is sound...
and one hand clapping?
man without woman?
light without dark?
nothing....
can we get past ancient philosopy hidden by relativism and perhaps go for the daily double?
God knew a lot about eggs; (the 'egg' is a wonderful invention*)
God had never seen a Chicken!
God kept making 'Egg laying creatures',
One egg eventually hatched as a 'Chicken' !
*If you do not agree; "Make an egg!; no cheating, by starting with DNA, etc."
"Make ONE feather!"
Note via Biology class, circa 1960: "All Birds have 'Scales'; whereas, not all reptiles have 'Scales'!"
Roy Stewart,
Phoenix AZ
God had never seen a Chicken!
God kept making 'Egg laying creatures',
One egg eventually hatched as a 'Chicken' !
*If you do not agree; "Make an egg!; no cheating, by starting with DNA, etc."
"Make ONE feather!"
Note via Biology class, circa 1960: "All Birds have 'Scales'; whereas, not all reptiles have 'Scales'!"
Roy Stewart,
Phoenix AZ
Well I guess i will put my 2 cents in. First I must say evolution does not disprove creation and i am not making a case for either. Secondly it has to do with complex systems. For example, lets take a manufacturing line with a machine on an assembly line manufacturing microprocessor chips. The machine is made from microprocessors and perhaps the same as the kind it is now producing. So which came first?! Neither because over years the technologies have evolved into a complex system, now in somewhat of a loop where you need the machine to made the chip and the chip to make the machine. How about RNA and DNA can't have one without the other. Just as complex systems evolve so does nature. And anyway the problem is not the chicken or the egg it is the question.
It was the egg but the retard seems to have gotten his theory wrong.
You take two breeds of dogs and have them mate. What do you get from that? Well a mix breed. Same goes for humans and everything else.
Similarly if two breeds of birds were to mate, you would get a bit of both. That is the egg, possibly after many iterations of such breeding.
You take two breeds of dogs and have them mate. What do you get from that? Well a mix breed. Same goes for humans and everything else.
Similarly if two breeds of birds were to mate, you would get a bit of both. That is the egg, possibly after many iterations of such breeding.
Populations evolve, not individuals. If there were a first 'chicken', what did it mate with? Rather, the chicken and the 'chicken egg' evolved simultaneously in a population. There's no individual you can point to as the first of the species. It's a matter of relative gene frequencies in the whole population evolving over time. Then one can get divergent groups that are genetically incompatible, such as modern humans vs. Neanderthals. The chicken and egg paradox is an old dilemma for old-fashioned Aristotelian thinking. Wake up and smell the 21st century -- the 20th even.
Come on, that is just high school biology, people knew that 10^n years ago
The Rooster came first,then the hen from the Rooster ,then the egg,from the hen.
just as God made Man first,took woman from man ,and the child from woman.
If the egg was first there was no hen to lay it, or rooster, to fertilize the egg.
The cycle could not have continued. Gary
just as God made Man first,took woman from man ,and the child from woman.
If the egg was first there was no hen to lay it, or rooster, to fertilize the egg.
The cycle could not have continued. Gary
QUOTE (Gary+May 27 2006, 09:25 AM)
The Rooster came first,then the hen from the Rooster ,then the egg,from the hen.
just as God made Man first,took woman from man ,and the child from woman.
If the egg was first there was no hen to lay it, or rooster, to fertilize the egg.
The cycle could not have continued. Gary
hey Gary... your forgetting lilith.. gods first wife for adam... (that didnt work out too well either). sheesh..
this is not a biological creation question.. this is a zen koan...
but i guess simplistic western religion believers dont get that far in their development unless they want to, and few want to...(i am luthran, so dont go there)...
you guys are too funny... fundementalists have nothing better to do than hang out on a physics board and ruin it with their crapola...
how would you like it if us physicists went to your church and harrassed you to prove our point while your in services?
grow up guys... neither have to be reconciled with either. one is one thing for one purpose, the other is another thing...
if you KNOW if creation is true, then you violate faith, and if you violate faith, then you destroy the purpose of life in the eyes of god. any man can then lie in his belief in god, in fact, once faith is broken, you no longer believe anything, you know... if god wanted you to know, and give you the answers to the quiz, then he would make it totally unambiguous...
since s/he doesnt. well. thats not what s/he wants you to focus on... your quest in this manner is the devils distraction... you are on a false journey that takes you farther away from god the more you search for him in a world he made, not lives in.
your search for proof and to prove to others is a indication that you have no faith. you are faithless, and are projecting that lack of faith into a fight with people not concerned with your issues.
in the mean time... you are ruining the very foundation of the things that provide the benifits of god to you. destroy science, you destroy health, progress, potential for end to misery... while there is a lot of misery in the world, its decidedly less due to science. or do you think dying in childbirth, famine, pestilence, desease, starvation as a normal life experience a better one?
for those that believe in a devil, he is making you tear down the very thing that god provided to you. he may have not wanted you to lose your innocence in knowlege, but now the deed is done, one must remember, HE made the tree of knowledge that we ate from.
god makes a tool, man uses tool, man grows, picks up tool and destroys himself with it... god laughs his *** off at you..
your search for proof is proof you dont believe...
so get thee behind me devil, and let me do some damn work without this noise from false believers and followers, for idle hands are the devils work... and you have way too much time on your hands, and are not using it wisely..
just as God made Man first,took woman from man ,and the child from woman.
If the egg was first there was no hen to lay it, or rooster, to fertilize the egg.
The cycle could not have continued. Gary
hey Gary... your forgetting lilith.. gods first wife for adam... (that didnt work out too well either). sheesh..
this is not a biological creation question.. this is a zen koan...
but i guess simplistic western religion believers dont get that far in their development unless they want to, and few want to...(i am luthran, so dont go there)...
you guys are too funny... fundementalists have nothing better to do than hang out on a physics board and ruin it with their crapola...
how would you like it if us physicists went to your church and harrassed you to prove our point while your in services?
grow up guys... neither have to be reconciled with either. one is one thing for one purpose, the other is another thing...
if you KNOW if creation is true, then you violate faith, and if you violate faith, then you destroy the purpose of life in the eyes of god. any man can then lie in his belief in god, in fact, once faith is broken, you no longer believe anything, you know... if god wanted you to know, and give you the answers to the quiz, then he would make it totally unambiguous...
since s/he doesnt. well. thats not what s/he wants you to focus on... your quest in this manner is the devils distraction... you are on a false journey that takes you farther away from god the more you search for him in a world he made, not lives in.
your search for proof and to prove to others is a indication that you have no faith. you are faithless, and are projecting that lack of faith into a fight with people not concerned with your issues.
in the mean time... you are ruining the very foundation of the things that provide the benifits of god to you. destroy science, you destroy health, progress, potential for end to misery... while there is a lot of misery in the world, its decidedly less due to science. or do you think dying in childbirth, famine, pestilence, desease, starvation as a normal life experience a better one?
for those that believe in a devil, he is making you tear down the very thing that god provided to you. he may have not wanted you to lose your innocence in knowlege, but now the deed is done, one must remember, HE made the tree of knowledge that we ate from.
god makes a tool, man uses tool, man grows, picks up tool and destroys himself with it... god laughs his *** off at you..
your search for proof is proof you dont believe...
so get thee behind me devil, and let me do some damn work without this noise from false believers and followers, for idle hands are the devils work... and you have way too much time on your hands, and are not using it wisely..
I wonder who paid for the research that produced this little nugget of information? Is this among the most pressing of questions or problems facing us?
What are all these creatinists doing in this SCIENCE forum?
Yes, the egg came before the chicken. No, the bird that came before the chicken and laid the egg was not very different from the chicken. But it was not a modern chicken. Evolution acts slowly. As you reward time, the birds being born from these eggs become each time more different from today´s chicken. Reward in time enough, and it will be a dinossaur laying an egg from which another dinossaur with some very few bird caractheristics was born. Reward more in time and it was some kind of fish laying eggs.
The analogy IS NOT "baby being born before the mother", but "which came first, the homo sapiens baby or the WOMB". In this case, it was the womb, since the women which gave birth to the first baby WAS NOT a homo sapiens sapiens (but very similar)
Now... you dont want to believe in evolution? Than change the question to "what came first, the chihuaua puppy or the womb?". The womb obviously, as ANY person involved in dog breeding will tell. You mix dogs with several different caractheristics that you want in the offspring. After some generations, you get the final dog... the chihuaua. Was the chihuaua´s mother a chihuaua dog? No, it wasnt.
Yes, the egg came before the chicken. No, the bird that came before the chicken and laid the egg was not very different from the chicken. But it was not a modern chicken. Evolution acts slowly. As you reward time, the birds being born from these eggs become each time more different from today´s chicken. Reward in time enough, and it will be a dinossaur laying an egg from which another dinossaur with some very few bird caractheristics was born. Reward more in time and it was some kind of fish laying eggs.
The analogy IS NOT "baby being born before the mother", but "which came first, the homo sapiens baby or the WOMB". In this case, it was the womb, since the women which gave birth to the first baby WAS NOT a homo sapiens sapiens (but very similar)
Now... you dont want to believe in evolution? Than change the question to "what came first, the chihuaua puppy or the womb?". The womb obviously, as ANY person involved in dog breeding will tell. You mix dogs with several different caractheristics that you want in the offspring. After some generations, you get the final dog... the chihuaua. Was the chihuaua´s mother a chihuaua dog? No, it wasnt.
QUOTE (Guest_AcesHigh+May 27 2006, 06:50 PM)
What are all these creatinists doing in this SCIENCE forum?
Yes, the egg came before the chicken. No, the bird that came before the chicken and laid the egg was not very different from the chicken. But it was not a modern chicken. Evolution acts slowly. As you reward time, the birds being born from these eggs become each time more different from today´s chicken. Reward in time enough, and it will be a dinossaur laying an egg from which another dinossaur with some very few bird caractheristics was born. Reward more in time and it was some kind of fish laying eggs.
The analogy IS NOT "baby being born before the mother", but "which came first, the homo sapiens baby or the WOMB". In this case, it was the womb, since the women which gave birth to the first baby WAS NOT a homo sapiens sapiens (but very similar)
Now... you dont want to believe in evolution? Than change the question to "what came first, the chihuaua puppy or the womb?". The womb obviously, as ANY person involved in dog breeding will tell. You mix dogs with several different caractheristics that you want in the offspring. After some generations, you get the final dog... the chihuaua. Was the chihuaua´s mother a chihuaua dog? No, it wasnt.
correct!!!! the egg shell is an external womb..
wonderful!!! (i rarely get to say this!!!)
Yes, the egg came before the chicken. No, the bird that came before the chicken and laid the egg was not very different from the chicken. But it was not a modern chicken. Evolution acts slowly. As you reward time, the birds being born from these eggs become each time more different from today´s chicken. Reward in time enough, and it will be a dinossaur laying an egg from which another dinossaur with some very few bird caractheristics was born. Reward more in time and it was some kind of fish laying eggs.
The analogy IS NOT "baby being born before the mother", but "which came first, the homo sapiens baby or the WOMB". In this case, it was the womb, since the women which gave birth to the first baby WAS NOT a homo sapiens sapiens (but very similar)
Now... you dont want to believe in evolution? Than change the question to "what came first, the chihuaua puppy or the womb?". The womb obviously, as ANY person involved in dog breeding will tell. You mix dogs with several different caractheristics that you want in the offspring. After some generations, you get the final dog... the chihuaua. Was the chihuaua´s mother a chihuaua dog? No, it wasnt.
correct!!!! the egg shell is an external womb..
wonderful!!! (i rarely get to say this!!!)
EGG HAS TO BE FIRST
Evolution theory is very simple.
For example initially an horse and a donkey produce mule (male as well as female).
These mules (male and female ) produce another mules.
Thus first baby mule comes without mother mule.
With the same philosophy first egg might have come from the combination of two different species.
Thus egg has to come first .
P.J.LAKHAPATE
plakhapate@rediffmail.com
Evolution theory is very simple.
For example initially an horse and a donkey produce mule (male as well as female).
These mules (male and female ) produce another mules.
Thus first baby mule comes without mother mule.
With the same philosophy first egg might have come from the combination of two different species.
Thus egg has to come first .
P.J.LAKHAPATE
plakhapate@rediffmail.com
The Egg,is the chicken!
QUOTE (Gary+May 27 2006, 09:25 AM)
The Rooster came first,then the hen from the Rooster ,then the egg,from the hen.
just as God made Man first,took woman from man ,and the child from woman.
If the egg was first there was no hen to lay it, or rooster, to fertilize the egg.
The cycle could not have continued. Gary
Here come the rooster!
just as God made Man first,took woman from man ,and the child from woman.
If the egg was first there was no hen to lay it, or rooster, to fertilize the egg.
The cycle could not have continued. Gary
Here come the rooster!
You're probably a troll, but I can't resist.
Creationism?.. If scientists would just.. Study it? What the **** is there to study?
Alright. Tell you what, religion-man. Stick with me for just a second while I introduce you to some unfortunate realities. If god does exist, chances are he's a lot smarter than a 14th century priest coming up with explanations for his own ignorance. If god made the entire universe.. (Or is that a hoax?!) I think he's probably capable of programming self-replicating proteins and allowing their genetic sequences to evolve. You aren't even proposing the existence of god, you're insisting on the fact that a few very undereducated people who lived hundreds of years ago are right about something they knew nothing about.
Also, I'm not sure what hive of stupidity you attend, but most major religious organizations don't even support creationism in the sense that you are suggesting, nor even intelligent design! Please, do us a favor and try not to confuse god for a bunch of morons operating in the dark ages.
Creationism?.. If scientists would just.. Study it? What the **** is there to study?
Alright. Tell you what, religion-man. Stick with me for just a second while I introduce you to some unfortunate realities. If god does exist, chances are he's a lot smarter than a 14th century priest coming up with explanations for his own ignorance. If god made the entire universe.. (Or is that a hoax?!) I think he's probably capable of programming self-replicating proteins and allowing their genetic sequences to evolve. You aren't even proposing the existence of god, you're insisting on the fact that a few very undereducated people who lived hundreds of years ago are right about something they knew nothing about.
Also, I'm not sure what hive of stupidity you attend, but most major religious organizations don't even support creationism in the sense that you are suggesting, nor even intelligent design! Please, do us a favor and try not to confuse god for a bunch of morons operating in the dark ages.
frankly, not only am I disappointed that I wasted time reading this ridiculous article (I guess my foreign co-workers have a different idea of what is interesting) but then I wasted more time by reading the comments from the pseudo-religious idiots who think they know better than anyone what god's plan was/is.
no wonder students do so poorly in science if this is what we have to work with.
no wonder students do so poorly in science if this is what we have to work with.
The first big problem is: A species in biology is a non-temporal entity. You have to use a temporal species definition for any discussion of the first appearance of a species. Such a chronospecies is defined by the reproductive isolation of populations of the former species. In such a branching event two new species are formed and the species they evolved from is no more (usually this is refered to as pseudo-extinction). The branching process is complete, when there are no individuals that are interfertile with both populations, which then become species. Because such individuals did exist before, the speciation event is marked in time by the death of the last of them. At the point when chickens split from "protochickens" there were probably both adult chickens and eggs around. Interesting point here: Adult protochickens turned to chickens at that point. So Brookfield is wrong because to him genetic characters of individuals are the key, but evolution acts on populations (and interestingly individuals may not belong to the same species all their life). Which he should know.
I've been saying that the egg came first for years!! Obviously, dinasours were around before chickens, and the dinasours were hatched from eggs. Now that scientists have actually proven this though, I don't know what pointless topic I'm going to argue about. 
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.