Evolution and the chicken!

[seebs]

The chicken egg in order for a chicken to hatch needs to contain a chicken however in order for that to happen a chicken must already have existed...hence the problem.

Not really.

The key here is that the thing that hatches from the egg can be a tiny bit different from the thing that laid the egg. And if you repeat that thousands of times... You can get a chicken even though you didn't start with one.

The analogy to English speaking parents and children is quite good. The language I speak is very, very, slightly different from what my parents spoke; the language they spoke is different from what their parents spoke. By the time you've scrolled back to 1611, the language is very different, as I'm sure you're aware. By the time you get back to, say, 800AD, there's nothing recognizable as "English".

 

[Alchemist]

The analogy to English speaking parents and children is quite good. The language I speak is very, very, slightly different from what my parents spoke; the language they spoke is different from what their parents spoke. By the time you've scrolled back to 1611, the language is very different, as I'm sure you're aware. By the time you get back to, say, 800AD, there's nothing recognizable as "English".

I like this example too (Linguistics major at university, go figure ). Words change in a language much the way that genes would change in biological evolution; new words form (mutations), words are lost as they become unnecessary to be replaced with new ones (natural selection), dialects form due to geographical distances between speakers (gene flow), and certain languages become like others, forming pidgin languages and creoles (convergence?).

One only needs to look at the influence, for example, the Norman invasion of England had on the English language. Once a Germanic language, the French influence on English was profound; the grammar changed, especially that of verb conjugation, the rich noun class system was replaced and many new words entered the language. Many other events like this have happened over time, changing English and of course other languages too . Whether or not the English of today is any better than the (imo, preferable) detailed case system of its Germanic roots is irrelevant... we can still communicate, and I think we can portray more information today than we could in those earlier times. Evolution at work?

Peace,
Alchemist

P.S. In regards to the OP, I don't think it matters whether the chicken or the egg came first. God did it how He wanted to .

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I like this example too (Linguistics major at university, go figure ). Words change in a language much the way that genes would change in biological evolution; new words form (mutations), words are lost as they become unnecessary to be replaced with new ones (natural selection), dialects form due to geographical distances between speakers (gene flow), and certain languages become like others, forming pidgin languages and creoles (convergence?).

One only needs to look at the influence, for example, the Norman invasion of England had on the English language. Once a Germanic language, the French influence on English was profound; the grammar changed, especially that of verb conjugation, the rich noun class system was replaced and many new words entered the language. Many other events like this have happened over time, changing English and of course other languages too . Whether or not the English of today is any better than the (imo, preferable) detailed case system of its Germanic roots is irrelevant... we can still communicate, and I think we can portray more information today than we could in those earlier times. Evolution at work?

Peace,
Alchemist

P.S. In regards to the OP, I don't think it matters whether the chicken or the egg came first. God did it how He wanted to .

it is problematic to compare the evolution of natural languages and the evolution of biological creatures. And the problem is creoles. the equivalent in living organisms is chimeras, which do not exist. Biological evolution unlike languages can not borrow structures from different trees. This borrowing is not only a natural but an essential thing in languages. This is perhaps one of the best ways to get a handle on nested hierarchies. Natural languages do not form nested hierarchies but rather swap modules, like a software developer-designer. Creatures can not, just because an octopus develops a particular type of eye it can not give the structure and the underlying genes to a shark.

The exceptation of course is lateral transfer.

 

[bluejeans]

God made the animals first naturally. The chicken came first of course,and
then the egg. God allowed Adam to name all the animals.
Which came first,sex or the sexes?

 

[stray bullet]

God made the animals first naturally. The chicken came first of course,and
then the egg. God allowed Adam to name all the animals.
Which came first,sex or the sexes?

Gametes.

 

[InnerPhyre]

This thread is proof positive that SO MANY creationists argue not against evolution, but against what they wrongly believe about evolution.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

God made the animals first naturally. The chicken came first of course,and
then the egg. God allowed Adam to name all the animals.
Which came first,sex or the sexes?

Sex, obviously. There are loads of organisms that reproduce sexually but in which the individuals are not divided into sexes.