The chicken or the egg? Both.

[Gene2memE]

Has no-one had the common sense to jump into a search engine - or heaven forbid, Google Scholar - and look up the evolutionary history of oviparous reproduction?

Google Scholar

 

[Kylie]

No of course not, just a bunch of eminent scientists talking, the people you put your faith in. Its worth watching a few of the videos to judge for yourself.

You really think that accepting science is the same kind of faith as religious faith?

Science MUST be testable. That's part of its very definition. If it can't be tested, then it's not science. You can't test religion. So don't try to pretend that science is as bad as religion.

 

[Kylie]

Which is of course a complete straw man, since the chicken and egg argument is either specific or generic. Your response is an
“ astounding “ (sic) illogical mix of the two.

So if you would kindly answer either the specific question:
Ie - which came first a chicken or a ( clearly meant )”hens” egg
, or instead the generic question - which came first the organism that produces eggs to reproduce, or the organism.

You would then be producing a logical , and so useful, response.

so if you would prefer to answer the LOGICAL question begged but use one of your examples , feel free. Eg Which came first the dinosaur or dinosaurs egg?

Neither.

There were animals that started out as dinosaur-ancestors and, over many generations, became more and more dinosaur-like and less and less dinosaur-ancestor-like.

This is basic evolutionary theory. If these basic concepts are not understood, then a fruitful discussion about this topic is not possible.

 

[Larniavc]

Hi there,

So I have come to the conclusion, that what we understand as the beginning, rests on entering into a relationship. That relationship, under the right circumstances, leads to a stable interaction with the world - from the point of which, what is created in that beginning, can be multiplied (that is, to the world). In the past, this has been seen as an "either/or" relationship; if the relationship is not there, then you will die. But what we see in the act of creation, is actually simpler still! What we see in creation, is that the parents develop a relationship with the child, which encourages the child to grow.

So what is this "relationship"? How does it "encourage"? That relationship is "projection", one parent projects a child onto the other and the other maintains, until the child is able to grow. In other words, you were the child you were, because your parents extended a projection between them. By extending a projection between them, you were able to develop a will, that part of your mother's soul and part of your father's soul were able to house a new soul for. The soul was for the will, which was for the projection. You don't need to study this, this is just something you have, which enables you to do all the other things you do.

So your parents projected and you came to have a soul, and after you were born, you began to identify with the projection your parents had of you and your soul began to negotiate the will that was in you, because of that projection - this is what made you strong! It is being strong, that Jesus intended you to enjoy when He brought your parents together. Jesus knew that your parents would project, what they did, and that you would be created as a result. Your parents did not know how to project or handle projection, without the relationship that Jesus created in them, for the purpose of projecting you, one onto the other.

So it is that you were there with your parents, in the beginning, projecting. You were both the interaction of the projection with your parents and the meaning of the projection itself. You were able to reject the projection and become nothing, or you were able to add to the projection and become talented - this is the meaning of entering into a relationship with God, through projection. It is a "both/and" relationship. God means for you to be able to interact with Him, that way you become an "intelligent design" of which there are almost innumerable ways of being. This is the beginning of faith.

I hope you find this nourishing.

Thanks.

The egg predates chickens by hundreds of millions of years.

 

[Sorn]

You really think that accepting science is the same kind of faith as religious faith?

Science MUST be testable. That's part of its very definition. If it can't be tested, then it's not science. You can't test religion. So don't try to pretend that science is as bad as religion.

I was just responding to your comment that because the channel had 'truth' in its name the content would have no truth. That's an easily testable assertion by watching a few of the videos. That way you can get to do some science of your own too!

 

[Kylie]

I was just responding to your comment that because the channel had 'truth' in its name the content would have no truth. That's an easily testable assertion by watching a few of the videos. That way you can get to do some science of your own too!

Well, in my experience, it's like a choice between a stereo made by Panasonic or Super Excellent Stereo Company. Which one do you think you'd be replacing in a few months because it's cheap plastics and parts?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

He created them male and female after their kind.

There are plenty of creatures with more than two sexes, and the majority of living things are asexual...

 

[Ligurian]

That's an "either/or" response.

The chicken came first. Unless something warm is sitting on the chicken-egg, it won't hatch into a chicken. And many of the something-warms drop rocks around the egg until they break it open. Hard to believe that something other than a chicken is willing to sit on an egg for three whole weeks.

 

[Kylie]

The chicken came first. Unless something warm is sitting on the chicken-egg, it won't hatch into a chicken. And many of the something-warms drop rocks around the egg until they break it open. Hard to believe that something other than a chicken is willing to sit on an egg for three whole weeks.

But this idea requires that this first chicken did not come from an egg.

 

[Ligurian]

But this idea requires that this first chicken did not come from an egg.

Exactly.
Which came first... means something comes second/after.
For the chicken to come second, the egg would have to be fertilized.
The rooster that fertilzes the egg is a chicken.

 

[Gene2memE]

Evolution is tricky like that.

If every fossil of every chicken and all of their ancestors was perfectly preserved and then lined up in chronological order, you could never identify the point at which 'not a chicken' becomes 'chicken'. There was no point where a 'not a chicken' gave birth to a 'chicken'.

You can however definitely point to the modern birds an identify 'chicken', and you can definitely point to the ancient birds and identify a 'not a chicken'.

This is because the notion of 'species' is a human concept. We identify a set of certain characteristics and label the assemblage of such as a species. But, it's arbitrary, in the sense that it's just labelling we use because we're inherently pattern-seeking.

The species 'chicken' is still evolving. If we let nature take its course again and the right conditions come along, one part of the population would likely evolve into something that is 'not a chicken', but is also different from the earlier 'not a chickens'.

 

[Ligurian]

Evolution is tricky like that.

If every fossil of every chicken and all of their ancestors was perfectly preserved and then lined up in chronological order, you could never identify the point at which 'not a chicken' becomes 'chicken'. There was no point where a 'not a chicken' gave birth to a 'chicken'.

You can however definitely point to the modern birds an identify 'chicken', and you can definitely point to the ancient birds and identify a 'not a chicken'.

This is because the notion of 'species' is a human concept. We identify a set of certain characteristics and label the assemblage of such as a species. But, it's arbitrary, in the sense that it's just labelling we use because we're inherently pattern-seeking.

The species 'chicken' is still evolving. If we let nature take its course again and the right conditions come along, one part of the population would likely evolve into something that is 'not a chicken', but is also different from the earlier 'not a chickens'.

I'm more of an Agassiz type of person... Polygenism makes sense to me.

 

[Kylie]

Exactly.
Which came first... means something comes second/after.
For the chicken to come second, the egg would have to be fertilized.
The rooster that fertilzes the egg is a chicken.

So it would seem that without evolution, the question is unanswerable.

However, as @Gene2memE showed, evolution answers it very nicely. There are many generations of non-chickens that gradually become more-and-more chicken-like until they are chickens.

It's like going from day time to night time. There's no single instant when it stops being a bright day and becomes a dark night. Rather, it gradually becomes less and less day-like and gradually becomes more and more night-like.

 

[Kylie]

I'm more of an Agassiz type of person... Polygenism makes sense to me.

I'm interested in hearing your take on polygenism. Would you be willing to discuss it in a new thread if I started one?

 

[AV1611VET]

This is because the notion of 'species' is a human concept. We identify a set of certain characteristics and label the assemblage of such as a species. But, it's arbitrary, in the sense that it's just labelling we use because we're inherently pattern-seeking.

Yup ... only on paper.

 

[Sorn]

So it would seem that without evolution, the question is unanswerable.

Not at all. Evolution, if true, would mean an egg came first, before a true chicken anyway, but creation (or at least 7 day type creation) , if true, would mean the chicken came first as God would just create a fully formed chicken and rooster to begin with.

 

[Gene2memE]

I'm more of an Agassiz type of person... Polygenism makes sense to me.

But, it doesn't make any sense based on what we know from the evidence.

What we have available to us points to modern humans (as in, Homo Sapiens) being descended from a relatively small set of precursor populations of Homo Erectus, which lived in southern and eastern Africa, and spread out from Africa starting about 250,000 years ago, with a number of 'pulses' of spread at 200,000 and 70,000 years ago. No just the fossil evidence and biogeography, but the genetics as well.

Given there is evidence of interbreeding with other Homo sub-speices in Europe (Neanderthalis), Asia (Denisovans) and Africa (as yet unidentified), you could conceivably argue for some variation of the assimilation model. You could even argue for the multiregional model (at a stretch) with evidence of Homo Erectus in Southwest Europe, the Levant, West Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia.

But, polygenism is an intellectual dead end and we've known that for at least 60 or 70 years.

 

[Ligurian]

I'm interested in hearing your take on polygenism. Would you be willing to discuss it in a new thread if I started one?

Go to the source: Agassiz. Pretty sure I can't improve on him. And the bible people would be all over it in a heartbeat. That said... yeah, I'd probably toss in my buck and a half.

 

[Kylie]

Not at all. Evolution, if true, would mean an egg came first, before a true chicken anyway, but creation (or at least 7 day type creation) , if true, would mean the chicken came first as God would just create a fully formed chicken and rooster to begin with.

Ah, but when we go and have a look at all the evidence from the real world, which one do we find evidence for?

 

[Ligurian]

But, it doesn't make any sense based on what we know from the evidence.

What we have available to us points to modern humans (as in, Homo Sapiens) being descended from a relatively small precursor populations of Homo Erectus, which lived in southern and eastern Africa, and spread out from Africa starting about 250,000 years ago, with a number of 'pulses' of spread at 200,000 and 70,000 years ago. No just the fossil evidence and biogeography, but the genetics as well.

Given there is evidence of interbreeding with other Homo sub-speices in Europe (Neanderthalis), Asia (Denisovans) and Africa (as yet unidentified), you could conceivably argue for some variation of the assimilation model. You could even argue for a the multiregional model (at a stretch) with evidence of Homo Erectus in Southwest Europe, the Levant, West Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia.

But, polygenism is an intellectual dead end and we've known that for at least 60 or 70 years.

I'm definitely not one of those "out of Africa" people. CroMagnon Aurignation gets my vote.

Who's this "we" of whom you speak? ... ... I'm also not a herd animal. Sorry if this hurts your feelings.