what came first chicken or egg

oh..ok...egg cannot be produced naturally without a male chicken...the the question should be where came the male chicken from...isn't it?

no one explained clearly how animals came into existence!

Originally posted by Jay Peatea
The shell is just a small fraction of the egg, the insides are what counts. It is the embroy inside that turns into the chicken, therefore they are one and the same, but just at different phases of developement 🙂

Hey! There's a next question then: is a pregnant woman a woman or a baby? "the embroy inside that turns into the baby, therefore they are one and the same, but just at different phases of developement" 🙂

Originally posted by muktadir
oh..ok...egg cannot be produced naturally without a male chicken...the the question should be where came the male chicken from...isn't it?

no one explained clearly how animals came into existence!

The egg was produced by a chicken-like animal; a male and a female of this protochicken mating. You can decide arbritrarily which exact point on the development scale the bird became a chicken. It's a gradual process.

Life probably began when nucleic acids began to spontaneously come together when nucleotide triphosphates began to react together. The nucleic acids acted as templates for their own reproduction. Random mutations added genetic diversity which natural selection acted upon. More complex systems of nucleic acids and the things they coded into being survived and reproduced better until cells came into being.

This is a very fine philosophic question , while hence an egg cannot come first becuase it must be laid by a chicken , the egg could even be laid be a bird , hence while it cannot be chicken , because the chicken comes from the egg which came before but maybe , those ancient chickens came from eggs that weren't called eggs , maybe something else . I doubt this question badly .

I do not believe in evolution. I am not saying that I am a bible thumper, and I am not going to jam anything down your throat.

My point was only to bring in some valid, unanswerable questions. The theory of evolution is far from proven fact, and quite a bit of speculation, guessing, and blind faith is involved.

Prove me wrong in any of these statements:

1. Creatures have naturally evolv ...[text shortened]... n over every last rock in the sea. And then Ill just say that they must be buried a bit deeper.[/b]

Evolution of animals is a PROVEN fact.
Perhaps you meant the evolution theory I dont know, but
evolution has been proven by many, individual facts.

The evolution of animals could easily be proven in court to be
true, as well as in a debate of just about any sort.

When you have fossils, skeletons, old remains, new remains, pictures, of the same animal just different time periods, and they have differences, BAM- that is evolution 101. THAT IS PROVEN.

Science as a whole has been so successfull it isn't funny.
Science and Scientists whos only objective is observation, discovery, and truth, has always been attacked by religion and there followers.
Why attack the one thing that is real?
Why spend time writing on this forum to make you sleep better at night
thinking that you have once again proven science wrong.

You are wrong, and mainly wrong because of your bias'ness based
on one thing "" Your religion"". Science is not a religion, science actually exists.

In the end you will be killed by science, not GOD. That can be proven as well.

You can't prove that GOD made you walk in front of that truck, you can prove that YOU walked in front of the truck.

Fairy Tales are for young children, not adults.

Joe

Originally posted by joedrummer2422
Evolution of animals is a PROVEN fact.
Perhaps you meant the evolution theory I dont know, but
evolution has been proven by many, individual facts.

The evolution of animals could easily be proven in court to be
true, as well as in a debate of just about any sort.

When you have fossils, skeletons, old remains, new remains, pictures, of the sam ...[text shortened]... that YOU walked in front of the truck.

Fairy Tales are for young children, not adults.

Joe

List of words you need to understand before you go anywhere near a debate again:

proven
fact
micro-evolution
macro-evolution
animal (how can we have fossils, skeletons, old remains, and new remains of the same animal? Cut apart limb by limb over thousands of years?)
religion
"there followers"??

I think in your first statement you are saying that the same species, making changes over time is proof for evolution. Yes, the much accepted micro-evolution it is. But when we look at fossils of species, and other species, just because they are at different "layers" of earth, doesn't mean a thing. You can send identical fossils off to separate labs and they will write back with completely different results. The thing is, whatever dating methods we use are flawed in some way. The scientists come out with the answers they somewhat expected to find.

"All dating methods related to the unobservable past rely on unverifiable assumptions, chief of which is the one about closed systems. Furthermore, all dating methods involve the subjective evaluation of data and results, so much so, that their veracity must seriously be questioned."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/dating_game.asp

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The egg was produced by a chicken-like animal; a male and a female of this protochicken mating. You can decide arbritrarily which exact point on the development scale the bird became a chicken. It's a gradual process.

Life probably began when nucleic acids began to spontaneously come together when nucleotide triphosphates began to react together ...[text shortened]... and the things they coded into being survived and reproduced better until cells came into being.

I was going to say that, thanks for saving me a lot of typing. No one seems to understand the obvious answer.

Originally posted by Coconut
List of words you need to understand before you go anywhere near a debate again:

proven
fact
micro-evolution
macro-evolution
animal (how can we have fossils, skeletons, old remains, and new remains of the same animal? Cut apart limb by limb over thousands of years?)
religion
"there followers"??

I think in your first statement you are saying tha ...[text shortened]... ity must seriously be questioned."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/dating_game.asp

radiocarbon dating doesnt rely on any asumptions that aren't as natural as assuming you wont change into a purple cow tomorrow. We know the half-life of C-14 and know that it doesn't change. We can do simple math. The problem is with people trying to be too specific. And I know some things can't be carbon dated, but that seemed to be what you were talking about.

And I appreciate having someone else argue that both sides should educate themselves before arguing about things. On that we agree Coconut.

Originally posted by Coconut
List of words you need to understand before you go anywhere near a debate again:

proven
fact
micro-evolution
macro-evolution
animal (how can we have fossils, skeletons, old remains, and new remains of the same animal? Cut apart limb by limb over thousands of years?)
religion
"there followers"??

I think in your first statement you are saying tha ...[text shortened]... ity must seriously be questioned."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/dating_game.asp

Thanks for verifying that I used the word "proven" correctly. While saying I dont know what it means.

They have tons and tons of fossils and skeletons showing you how they evolved!! Have you ever been to a meusum? Have you ever seen the caveman skulls and iceman skulls and how much they are FUNDAMENTALLY different?

To what extent animals have evolved I don't beleive that is close to being proven. But I do know that animals DO evolve.


You use the words "layers of earth" as if it means nothing.

It takes time (lots of time) for dead skeletons to end up 20 feet under ground in Most cases. That can't be ignored, poeple like you do, but your no geologist.

And you are getting too specific about the importance of carbon and layer dating. Yes, it will never be perfected. DOESN"T MATTER THOUGH.

MANY THINGS WILL NEVER BE PERFECTED.
CARS WONT BE PERFECTED.
GOVERNMENTS WONT BE PERFECTED
EVEN MATH MIGHT NEVER BE EXPLORED AL THE WAY THROUGH.

But we still know that it was a long long long time ago when these animals died.

Poeple like you see one imperfection and say everything is false.

You would probably think that its possible that dinosaurs lived 500 years ago wouldn't you?
Dates may be inaccurate, but they aren't THAT inaccurate.

Roaches evolve very quickly, so do diseases. Larger things evolve much slower.
And they are LARGE because they have been evolving thus far and have been successfull. And have less evolving left to do.

Why would you say girraffes necks are so long?
Why do Polar bears have so much fat and fur?

The fact is you have very few points of attack on this subject.
If any.

ONE LAST THING.

How can you agree that micro-evolution is taking place but evolution isnt? Do we only evolve for a few hundred years and then reset back to our old selves again? lol

Originally posted by joedrummer2422
Thanks for verifying that I used the word "proven" correctly. While saying I dont know what it means.

They have tons and tons of fossils and skeletons showing you how they evolved!! Have you ever been to a meusum? Have you ever seen the caveman skulls and iceman skulls and how much they are FUNDAMENTALLY different?

To what extent animals ha ...[text shortened]... nt? Do we only evolve for a few hundred years and then reset back to our old selves again? lol

Look it up like he said. He and many other creationists will agree that evolution happens in smaller life forms because of the overwhelming evidence. They either deny that larger animals evolve, or admit that evolution happens but say that god put all kinds of seperate animals on earth and they may evolve from there, but that we were created and have no common ancestor with other primates. At least that is my understanding, If any of you creationists want to correct or confirm that I summarized your viewpoint correctly, that would help.

To what extent animals have evolved I don't beleive that is close to being proven. But I do know that animals DO evolve.
If you don't believe in creationism, how do you think animals came about if you don't agree with those of us who think life evolved all the way.

Roaches evolve very quickly, so do diseases. Larger things evolve much slower.
And they are LARGE because they have been evolving thus far and have been successfull. And have less evolving left to do.
Microorganisms evolve far faster than roaches, and not all of them cause diseases thank you. And this whole view of evolution is skewed and innacurate. What do you mean they have less evolving left to do. The "perfect forms" idea is from ancient greece, not at all modern scientific thinking. Everything will keep evolving, Not get to some mythical perfection point and stop. And being large doesn't mean they have evolved more or been more sucessful. Parasites like Toxoplasma Gondii could be considered among the most evolved creatures around. Flies are far more sucessful than large animals. Why don't you learn some evolution biology before trying to argue about it.

Why would you say girraffes necks are so long?
Why do Polar bears have so much fat and fur?
I pray to the FSM, may his noodley appendage forever touch you, that you are not talking about Lamarkian evolution here. Evolution is certainly responsible, but given your perchant for using ideas gotten rid of years ago, please don't try to explain it to anyone.

P.S. Sorry if I came off a little harsh, but I get really annoyed when people misrepresent sciencce. And I like Coconut better than you even if he is wrong.

Have you ever been to a meusum? Have you ever seen the caveman skulls and iceman skulls and how much they are FUNDAMENTALLY different?
Have you ever been and seen the models where the white is the bone they found, and the grey is what they THINK the rest of it would look like if it where there? These skulls have been found and formed to shape what humans want our past to look like. Many of your "missing link" cavemen are assumed by one bone, or a skeleton of a deformed homo sapien.

It takes time (lots of time) for dead skeletons to end up 20 feet under ground in Most cases. That can't be ignored, poeple like you do, but your no geologist. ... But we still know that it was a long long long time ago when these animals died.
Unless it was a worldwide flood that covered them up. But I'm guessing you don't believe in that either. Just saying...

You would probably think that its possible that dinosaurs lived 500 years ago wouldn't you?
Dates may be inaccurate, but they aren't THAT inaccurate.
I believe the earth can't be more than 7000 years old. Dating IS that inaccurate because we go off false assumtions. Assumptions that everything has alwasys been as it is now, and that nothing BIG interfered with the natural process (like a big flood)


Why would you say girraffes necks are so long?

so their feet can reach the ground.

Why do Polar bears have so much fat and fur?

so the penguins don't eat them.

(Penguins and polar bears don't live together if you didn't know that. It was a joke)

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
Look it up like he said. He and many other creationists will agree that evolution happens in smaller life forms because of the overwhelming evidence. They either deny that larger animals evolve, or admit that evolution happens but say that god put all kinds of seperate animals on earth and they may evolve from there, but that we were created and have ...[text shortened]... oyed when people misrepresent sciencce. And I like Coconut better than you even if he is wrong.

Mad Scientist.

I understand you know a lot of theorys and large words that no one has ever heard off.

That is great.

I will only concede one point. And that is that large animals aren't finished evolving.

Other than that, what I said was accurate.

I do not know how animals got here because I dont know how anything got here. But we were talking about evolution. Like you know, Darwin and stuff.

"Not all of them cause diseases thank you" -- What r u talking about?

I am sorry Mad Scientist but to say flies are so advanced in evolution can only be said by blindly looking at at flies via' one point-of-view.

What is the main sign of sucessfull evolution?
Must be Intelligence 1st and then reproduction second.

Is it harder for a parasite to learn to play chess, or reproduce?

I do not have a certain theory for evolution. I was just showing obvious points of evolution.

If I say roaches evolve, I dont need to hear you critisize me because I don't know everything about that certain theory.



Thanks.



Other than that. Why dont you stop reading off text from a book and voice your opinion on the matter.

Mad Scientist likes to attack the strongest point, (mine) to make himself feel like he is #1.

My points above are strong, not weak. I think I am done chatting. I don't like poeple that just rant and dont addess the real issues I bring up.
(mad scientist) --- has no opinion, just likes to sound smart.

Coconut- Answer my question.
-
-
How can you agree that micro-evolution is taking place but evolution isnt? Do we only evolve for a few hundred years and then reset back to our old selves again.

Joe

Originally posted by joedrummer2422

Coconut- Answer my question.
-
-
How can you agree that micro-evolution is taking place but evolution isnt? Do we only evolve for a few hundred years and then reset back to our old selves again.

Joe

I don't even think you know what you are talking about. We, and other species (birds in the Galapagos was it) can CHANGE to become better suited for where they are. They don't reset, they can keep changing beak size forever, but they will still be a bird obviously.

Micro and macro are different things completely. Macro evolution says that given enough time, that bird came from a many-times mutated lizard. I'm sure any educated person, from evolution or creation standpoint, on these forums could tell you that you're wrong in thinking micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution.

Humans are a bit different. There are cases of frogs migrating many hundreds of miles to other climates, and actually becoming a different species of FROG over generations. Meaning their DNA is now so changed that breeding the old type with the new type would not work. Humans come in black, white, hairy, smooth. Many are adapted to their countries, but all humans can still breed with each other, meaning we are the same species.

Originally posted by Coconut
I don't even think you know what you are talking about. We, and other species (birds in the Galapagos was it) can CHANGE to become better suited for where they are. They don't reset, they can keep changing beak size forever, but they will still be a bird obviously.

Micro and macro are different things completely. Macro evolution says that given enough ...[text shortened]... heir countries, but all humans can still breed with each other, meaning we are the same species.

WOW, I definately see your point.

I think that both of those are called evolution for a reason.

Evolution in different stages.

Humans are adapted to their country? You mean environment.

I agree.

Good points. But evolution in animals has and always will happen.

Joe