Which came first...

Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?

State what you believe came first, and than why.

The chicken. A chick would never be able to survive on its own, nor would the egg be able to hatch in the first place, without an incubator (hen). Now an evolutionist will come up with some outlandish story to explain how the egg came first... eh, whatever -_-

An outlandish story? Like the one about a big invisible being magically creating adult chickens out of thin air?

Here is the 'outlandish' evolutionist story:
The question assumes that it is possible to look back through the history of chicken evolution to one particular instant and say, 'Prior to this, there were no chickens; after this, there were.' This is not possible. However, if it were possible to do this then the fact that the genetic basis for the chicken is laid down in the egg, the egg has to have come first. A non-chicken laid an egg that hatched into a chicken. In real life, of course, these two creatures would have been indistinguishable from each other, so such a clear-cut scenario would not have happened.

Basically, from an evolutionist perspective 'chicken' is what we call a particular creature in a particular time period. Any line we draw between it and other creatures - non-chickens - will be arbitrary.

DrGather said:

Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?

State what you believe came first, and than why.

Click to expand...

Hope you have better luck than we did here: http://www.christianforums.com/t1664741-chicken-or-the-egg.html

The egg. Dinosaurs were laying eggs long before there were any chickens around.

David Gould said:

Basically, from an evolutionist perspective 'chicken' is what we call a particular creature in a particular time period. Any line we draw between it and other creatures - non-chickens - will be arbitrary.

Click to expand...

So basically the line of species is arbitrarily placed, such as the line that exists between wolves, dogs, and coyotes... even though there is absolutely no reason that they should be considered different species. They can all interbreed and reproduce viable, fertile "cross-species." Much like Darwin's finches (which were later proven to also be able to interbreed... when given the choice they rarely did, but in captivity they were still shown to be able to interbreed and produce not only one generation of viable, fertile chicks, but that generation produced yet another generation of viable, fertile chicks, and so on).

Sorry for getting off topic

DrGather said:

Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?

State what you believe came first, and than why.

Click to expand...

Assuming we could sharply define the minimal genetic requirements of chickenhood, it would be the egg, since the egg would be the first entity to have the DNA required to count as a chicken, unlike its parents, who would fall slightly short.

I'm glad we finally settled that issue!

This reminds me of a goofy joke (or party trick!)

Person A: Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg Egg. Now where do chickens lay?
Person B: Pizza!
Anyways...egg seems like a good fit for what came first, although obviously its parents must have been genetically close to what we now call a chicken. I mean, really, the chickens we have now are bred for specific traits, and that's how it's done.

Muko

Did you mean dogs, wolves, and dingos? Because they're actually all the same species, so I don't see why there would be any surprise in breeding them to make viable offspring. Coyotes are a different species, so I'd be very much surprised if any animal of the species Canis Lupis successfully bred fertile offspring with an animal of the species Canis Latrans.

Socrastein said:

Muko

Did you mean dogs, wolves, and dingos? Because they're actually all the same species, so I don't see why there would be any surprise in breeding them to make viable offspring. Coyotes are a different species, so I'd be very much surprised if any animal of the species Canis Lupis successfully bred fertile offspring with an animal of the species Canis Latrans.

Click to expand...

I feel very unique, now.

Now, back on topic... make mine another votefor the egg, laid by the, for our standarts, not-quite-so-chicken.
The not-quite-so-chicken, however, is not extint, but is quite famous on certain restaurants who serve a cheap chick soup.

When does a chicken's life begin!!??!

In a sense the egg and the chicken are part of the same entity, so neither.

Or you could say that it was th echicken because some human had to come along and identify something as "chicken" before there could be one. Prior to that it had no name.

Course that's true of eggs as well.

Socrastein said:

Muko

Did you mean dogs, wolves, and dingos? Because they're actually all the same species, so I don't see why there would be any surprise in breeding them to make viable offspring. Coyotes are a different species, so I'd be very much surprised if any animal of the species Canis Lupis successfully bred fertile offspring with an animal of the species Canis Latrans.

Click to expand...

Grey Wolf - Canis lupus
Coyote - Canis latrans
Dog - Canis familiaris

Same genus, different species, and all (also including the jackal) are interfertile. In fact, every member of the genus Canis is interfertile with any other member of the genus Canis.

One of the first google results I got about the interfertility of Canis (specifically looking at coyotes). You can get many more very easily. The fact of the matter is, these should not be considered different species. This is why Creationists have had to go back to the Biblical verses saying that each produces after their own kind. We can't say species because evolutionists are using deception to try to prove their views. "Look, I have found finches that used to be the same species but have 'evolved' into different species." The proof is obvious, whether modern science wants to admit it or not, they are the same species. Different interfertile sub-species, sure, whatever, different species? Not by a long shot.

Muko said:

So basically the line of species is arbitrarily placed, such as the line that exists between wolves, dogs, and coyotes... even though there is absolutely no reason that they should be considered different species. They can all interbreed and reproduce viable, fertile "cross-species." Much like Darwin's finches (which were later proven to also be able to interbreed... when given the choice they rarely did, but in captivity they were still shown to be able to interbreed and produce not only one generation of viable, fertile chicks, but that generation produced yet another generation of viable, fertile chicks, and so on).

Sorry for getting off topic

Click to expand...

Species is arbitrary in the sense that because species change from generation to generation, however slightly. We have no hard and fast line where we can say, 'That is a chicken and that is not.' Now, we can easily say that a whale is not a chicken because the differences are so great. But exactly how many changes are necessary before something is not a chicken? And are those changes genetic or morphological?

The line for species that is scientifically agreed upon is 'does not or cannot normally interbreed'.

David Gould said:

The line for species that is scientifically agreed upon is 'does not or cannot normally interbreed'.

Click to expand...

Then why Darwin's finches? Why the entire genus of Canis being split up?! That was my point, these are obviously not different species yet science turns a blind eye to it and ignores the fact that they are lying to school children, they are lying to the world. I'm sorry, I know this isn't C&E, and I'm not trying to make this into a C&E debate, but it simply makes no sense, and it especially irritates me when evolutionists claim intellectual superiority when just as much faith is needed in believing in an unobservable series of events that brings us from a very complex paramecium to extremely complex modern humans as is needed to believe in an omnipotent God speaking it into existence. It is also irritating to me when evolutionists claim that science is ever changing and accepting to new ideas, when truly they are not. Do you know that in the State of California, the guideline for science teachers states that if a student questions evolution they are supposed to tell them "I understand that you may have personal reservations about accepting this scientific evidence, but it is scientific knowledge about which there is no reasonable doubt among scientists in this field." What?! No reasonable doubt? What the teacher is basically saying is "you're all alone here kid, sit down and shutup." Sorry to paraphrase Dr. Hovind, but truly according to evolutionists, a frog turning into a prince is a fairy tale... unless you add billions of years to the story, then it becomes science.

[/rant]

Muko said:

Grey Wolf - Canis lupus
Coyote - Canis latrans
Dog - Canis familiaris

Click to expand...

Dog - Canis Lupus actually. Canis familiaris is the subspecies. Wolves, dogs, and dingos are all the same species. Dogs and dingos are simply 2 separate subspecies of canis lupus. Only the coyote is a seperate species, canis latrans. And yes, all 4 are of the same genus.

Like has been said over and over and over, the taxonomic classifications are not objective, they are not metaphysically transcendent absolutes, they are simply classifications made by humans for the sake of grouping and order. So the fact that some species can actually breed doesn't mean evolution is a myth and we're lying to children, it just shows that the lines we draw are for our sake, they are not absolutes. You went from the fallibility of taxonomic classifications (Which nobody has denied here) to the absurdity of the entire theory of evolution. That's quite a stretch, a completely ignorant and unwarranted one in fact.

I'm not even going to comment on the rest of the bull that fills your post.

It was an objection to the "infallacy" of science and the air of intellectual superiority that surrounds it, not entirely specific to evolution. I have many, many objections to evolution. As for my first post of "bull," I said that the chicken came first, so eh, if you don't want to address the actual topic that's no skin off of my back.

Muko said:

Then why Darwin's finches? Why the entire genus of Canis being split up?! That was my point, these are obviously not different species...

Click to expand...

Note that the criterion is "cannot or does not." A wolf and a coyote will never interbreed under normal circumstances. They can, they just don't. The female's estrus cycle is different, their manner of courtship is different, and they're rival predators anyway so they tend to avoid each other.

Lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring as well. Does that mean they are the same species?

Anyway, here's another vote for egg.

Muko said:

Then why Darwin's finches? Why the entire genus of Canis being split up?!

Click to expand...

Because they do not or cannot normally interbreed. There are two parts to the definition:

The line for species that is scientifically agreed upon is 'does not or cannot normally interbreed'.

Click to expand...

If something does not normally interbreed with something else, even though it is biologically possible for it do so, they are considered to be separate species.

Muko said:

It was an objection to the "infallacy" of science and the air of intellectual superiority that surrounds it, not entirely specific to evolution.

Click to expand...

It is actually the case that people who accept science (ie: the scientific method) are the intellectual superiors of those who do not.

Muko said:

It was an objection to the "infallacy" of science and the air of intellectual superiority that surrounds it, not entirely specific to evolution. I have many, many objections to evolution. As for my first post of "bull," I said that the chicken came first, so eh, if you don't want to address the actual topic that's no skin off of my back.

Click to expand...

Nobody claims science is infallible. Nobody who isn't an idiot at least. The only intellectual superiority I see on the part of scientists is their warranted confidence in the fact that their claims are emperically supported, whereas those of whomever is likely arguing with them, are not. Like, you may think it's intellectual superiority when a scientist attacks an ID proponent for not having a shred of evidence for their "scientific theory", but it's really just pointing out the obvious and defending truth and evidence. There's a huge difference.

The rest of the bull I was referring to were ridiculous PRATTs like "Evolution takes just as much faith as creation!!!!11!!" and "Evolution is one big conspiracy to stifle the holes in the theory and fill the world with baby eating atheists!!!one!!"