Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Jekyll Jones
17 Followers
Kyle Gene Moody
180 Followers
Kyle Gene Moody
180 Followers
copperdigger
0 Followers
rusty11Jul 14, 2010
Dinosaurs layed eggs. dinosaurs evolved to birds.
pathouston22Jul 14, 2010
What came first, the dinosaur or the egg?
hazmatsuitJul 14, 2010
flying spaghetti monster
spuy767Jul 14, 2010
What he's saying is, that there is always an egg bearing the latest evolutionary iteration of a "chicken" before there is the "chicken." Er go, the egg came first.
pouyazJul 14, 2010
I must admit, by using Latin ("ergo") instead of English ("therefore"), you are instantly more credible.
shirukenJul 14, 2010
But if you use the same logic as the scientists from the article, then the dinosaur came before the egg. This assumes that dinosaurs have a similar protein to that found in the chicken that catalyzes the formation of the egg in the ovary. Therefore the dinosaur came before the egg.
unfatherJul 14, 2010
No there would have to be an entity to lay the egg first. That entity may be the last step in the evolution for one species before it becomes another, but that entity is still directly related to its offspring and came before the egg.
treshnellJul 14, 2010
So in the end, the question is, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
the answer is that the egg comes second.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
It all depends on at what position on the evolutionary timeline one would consider a chicken a "chicken". Once it is considered a chicken, it must have came from an egg. Therefore, the egg came first.
ray4389Jul 14, 2010
Actually it's simple--asexual reproduction started first.Evolution led to sexual reproduction in order to vary genetics.
crossfox17Jul 14, 2010
I have been making this argument for years. Glad to see someone else gets how evolution works. Even before true Dinosaurs, creatures like Gorgonopsid laid eggs, from which the first proto-dinosaurs would have came. Even fish lay eggs, so until you reach an organism that does not use eggs in sexual reproduction, the egg always comes first.
tgc1Jul 14, 2010
The Dinosaur. Dinosaurs evolved from lower order species, that at some point, i'd imagine did not lay eggs.
newman8rJul 15, 2010
uhh... fish lay eggs... even insects lay eggs - came WAY before dinosaurs even
cloudberriesJul 14, 2010
I just realised that. It makes so much sense it's almost stupid.
samslaterJul 14, 2010
Same answer I give everybody who asks. A chicken evolved from a different type of bird, that laid eggs, so the egg came first.
This article should point out that they're trying to show that the chicken came before the chicken egg.
transapienJul 14, 2010
I would still say the egg came first because the bird which evolved into the chicken laid an egg which essentially contained enough mutation to be considered a chicken(though more complicated breeding would have had to come after that as well). The very first chicken had to first come from an mutation to which it came out of an egg...
emoteenJul 14, 2010
But this is about THE egg not AN egg. Sure, there were probably fish eggs in the sea way before all of this...
monkeyvoodooJul 15, 2010
The entire question is stupid, and kind of hints at a lack of understanding of evolutionary process. Neither came first. But at some point, we started calling it a chicken.
There never was a point at which you could just suddenly call it "a chicken", because gradually over a long period of time, something that came before the chicken, which we wouldn't call a chicken, evolved into what we do call a chicken. If you take any two given evolutionary points that are spread far enough apart, you might say that you're looking at a "chicken", and a "not chicken", but it's not as though at some given point in time, suddenly a chicken hatched from an egg, and the egg-maker wasn't a chicken.
drsnugglebunnyJul 14, 2010
Eggs (as female gametes that are recognizably half of a potential future organism) can at least be traced back to the first multicellular animals and perhaps further depending on how you define 'egg,' so it goes back even deeper into evolution.
lolcoelacanthJul 15, 2010
Back to the first multicellular organisms? I would assume that the first gametes were isogamous. I don't know though, but do you have any links to back that up?
mxm111Jul 14, 2010
From another side, multicellular organisms appeared first, before any kind of egg.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
The chicken-or-the-egg question is really more of a philosophical question of infinite regression, which is exactly what we're running into in this thread if you read further. We can never answer it in scientific terms because there is no fossil record for the earliest egg-layers - they were most likely microscopic. An unbroken fossil record would possibly show a progression from asexual budding-type reproduction to something where the bud becomes encased in a nutritional or protective shell (like a seed) and only then to oviparous sexual reproduction.
The whole question is totally meaningless from an evolutionary standpoint - there was never a chicken (or any other animal) which was not hatched from an egg but which itself produced a complete, recognizable egg when it reproduced. The most you would see is a VERY gradual development of something vaguely egg-like - that's just how evolution works. That "something egg-like," I might add, would have been virtually indistinguishable from both its parents' and its children's proto-eggs, but noticeable different from the "something egg-like" of its distant ancestors or descendants.
I'm also curious - if you do believe that there was once a chicken which was not hatched from an egg but which did *lay* an egg, how was that chicken born? Viviparous reproduction is generally more "complex" than oviparous, so it's not like it could possibly have been a live birth....
shirukenJul 14, 2010
A pity your comment isn't the most Dugg as it renders any further discussion unnecessary.
bysinJul 14, 2010
Unfortunately a lot of dinosaurs were bird-like, not what we imagined.
http://linuxkiddies.com/pictures/raptor.jpg
peynisJul 14, 2010
But that birdraptor is the coolest thing ever.
momentJul 15, 2010
Why unfortunately?
rpgmakrJul 14, 2010
"'The chicken came first, not the egg', scientists prove"
Always known this. Will an egg come out of nothing? In the beginning we were sea creatures, microscopic sea creatures. From there we evolved.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pleasejustdieJul 14, 2010
microscopic sea creature doesn't equal a chicken. A chicken is an evolved bird of modern era. Modern chickens evolved from egg laying birds/reptiles, therefore a chicken came after the egg.
But this article is saying that modern chickens came before modern chicken eggs, meaning that a reptile or other animal that evolved into chickens didn't lay a chicken egg, they laid their own egg and a chicken came from it and the chicken's eggs that followed were of the modern chicken variety.
boomchockalockaJul 14, 2010
You communicate well for a chicken.
rpgmakrJul 14, 2010
@pleasejustdie: No, but every living creature came from that. When people ask about which came first they're talking about how was it in the very beginning. But to spoon-feed you, the egg came from something that ultimately didn't come from an egg.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
boomchockalockaJul 14, 2010
The Straight Dope agrees and gives a great explanation.
January 1, 1984
Dear Cecil:
Just one question. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
— Puzzled in L.A.
Dear Puzzled:
There are two answers to this question, P., one serious, one retarded. Let's start with the former.
(1) The egg came first. We know that chickens evolved from some earlier, non-chickenoid form of life, e.g., the half-bird, half-reptile Archaeopteryx. These non-chickens, however, arrived in eggs. Ergo, eggs were on the scene before chickens.
(2) The chicken came first because (sigh) the chicken had to get laid before the egg could. Don't say I didn't warn you.
— Cecil Adams
randomerratumJul 14, 2010
That doesn't look very scary.
Looks more like a six foot turkey.
hardataqJul 14, 2010
And that's when the attack comes. Not from the front...but from the SIDE from the other two raptors you didn't even know were there.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
You've clearly never faced off with a pissed off normal sized turkey.
f**k encountering a 6ft tall one.
randomerratumJul 14, 2010
I like the noise he (impossibly) makes;
...not from the front, but from the sides *whhffffttt!* from the other two raptors you didn't even know where there.
bosticasterJul 14, 2010
I'm new at this. Where in the fossil record did a dinosaur turn into a bird?
spongya77Jul 14, 2010
It didn't turn in the fossil record. It did it while it was alive.
Duh.
(And if you're new at that, google "evolution of birds", or go to pubmed.org, and do the same.)
bosticasterJul 14, 2010
@spongya77: I went to Wiki and there doesn't seem to be any proof that dinosaurs evolved into birds. I quote: " Currently, the relationship between dinosaurs, Archaeopteryx, and modern birds is still under debate."
There isn't anything in the fossil record to show your "duh" comment happened at all. From what I can tell this all seems to be speculation. Do you have any proof beyond just telling me to Google something? I'm really interested in clearing this up. if this is such a "given" as you seem to think it is, I would think that there should be some "proof" somewhere. Since no one was around to record it at the time you're saying it happened, and there's no fossil record of it, I'm foggy as to how it's a given it happened. Wiki is saying it's a theory.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
bosticaster, I'm reading a marvelous book by Richard Dawking called "The Greatest Show on Earth." It is aimed, in part, exactly at people like you: the ones who keep clamoring for the evidence and then resolutely ignoring it when it's presented to you.
In chapter 6 (I happen to have the book in front of me) he talks about the "missing" link, the true nature of the fossil evidence available to us, and he also SPECIFICALLY refers to the Archaeopteryx. In the edition that I have (Free Press hard-cover edition, 2009) the Archaeopteryx references may be found on pages 151 and 159-161. I hope that is specific enough for your needs.
Before demanding further evidence on a silly news aggregate website (I love Digg, but it's not what I'd call a scientific forum), I highly suggest that you pick up this book and read at least though the chapter I referenced; I also second Professor Dawkins' plea that you go to a museum - any decent museum - and examine the fossil record with your own eyes.
Of course, you're not REALLY asking for evidence. You're not REALLY interested in hearing or reading about the realities of contemporary neo-Darwinism, and I understand that. You just think that your "clever" and "incisive" critique is somehow going to show us heathens that you're right and 100 years of scientific inquiry is full of s**t. You don't want to see evidence; you want to bluster about how there *is* no evidence (this is demonstrably false, but you and your ilk are never discouraged by such minor inconveniences as facts) while pretending to do so in interests of scientific impartiality.
spongya77Jul 14, 2010
WhiskeyLemur,
I think I'm in love. ;)
The debate is futile. I tried to do it with evolution, climate change, politics, 9/11 conspiracies, and religion (even history, for Christ's sake). The pattern is the same: demand of proof (though evolution/climate change/whatever being the established theory, the "skeptics" should be proving THEIR points, but never mind), ignoring the sources, saying you should explain everything, and then ignoring the explanation. After that either 1. jump to another issue, 2. pulling a straw man, 3. calling you a pink-commie, tree-hugging libtard (the last part is actually true). Never once have I met anyone who said "wait a minute, let me evaluate the theory in light of these new facts".
Sad but true. It's futile.
bosticasterJul 14, 2010
Well, first of all, I don't think you're a heathen. I don't know you but you sound reasonable. Secondly I don't "necessarily" have a problem with picking up a copy of Dawkins book and checking your references if there is proof there. i will tell you that I've had this conversation before and when you go to the "supposed" proof, it ends up not being proof at all but speculation. I know Dawkins track record is a little spotty. He argued for years that the poor design of the eye was evidence that there wasn't any possibility of design and has since backed off of that.
I'm not against evidence, I just haven't seen any. And I'm not alone. Renowned ornithologists Alan Feduccia and Larry Martin don't believe it either.
I quote: Not all biologists believe that birds are dinosaurs... This group of scientists emphasize the differences between dinosaurs and birds, claiming that the differences are too great for the birds to have evolved from earlier dinosaurs. Alan Feduccia, and Larry Martin, for instance, contend that birds could not have evolved from any known group of dinosaurs. They argue against some of the most important cladistic data and support their claim from developmental biology and biomechanics.
Feduccia has this to say regarding the thesis of reptile-bird evolution:
Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century.
Larry Martin, a specialist in ancient birds from the University of Kansas, also opposes the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Discussing the contradiction that evolution falls into on the subject, he states:
"To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it."
The disagreement amongst evolutionists themselves stems from the fact that there is no evidence supporting an evolutionary origin for birds.
Now "you're" talking about my "blustering" and not wanting to look at proof. I just gave you some that contradicts what you're saying. " Obviously" there is no proof or there would be agreement by the experts in the field. Which begs the question: if there is no proof, then why are you Dawkins and others running around telling us all this is a done deal and when someone, ie me, asks a perfectly reasonable question, ie "where's the proof", I'm blustering, and I don't want to look at evidence?
spongya77Jul 14, 2010
Something to read (if using google is so hard):
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=avian+evolution&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
http://www.springerlink.com/content/wj1337493v4245h6/
http://www.bsu.edu/web/00cyfisher/avian_evolution_current_theories.htm
bosticasterJul 14, 2010
@spongya77: The Springlink and BSU.edu links show no proof, just theories. Since I obviously can't read all the Google scholar books listed at that link, and i doubt you have either, i can't comment and I don't see how you could without reading them either. Again, as I said in my response to WhiskeyLemur, I'm not against proof, I just haven't seen any.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
killozapJul 14, 2010
What's better proof could you ask for than the famous feather imprints on the multiple archaeopteryx fossils (not to mention fossils of other dinosaurs with feather imprints as well, e.g. sinosauropteryx) The archaeopteryx has an overall skeletal structure as well as the right posture (femur directly below the acetabulum) of a dinosaur and yet has well-developed flight feathers and a wishbone.
bosticasterJul 14, 2010
@killOzap: As I posted to WhiskeyLemur, two renowned experts, Alan Feduccia, and Larry Martin disagree with you. Please see post above.
sageerrantJul 14, 2010
Two. Compared to very nearly everyone else.
I'm not saying that the majority is always right, but I do find it hard to believe that neither of those experts can present a compelling enough argument to sway others in their field... unless, of course, they're simply wrong.
bosticasterJul 15, 2010
I didn't look that hard to find those two. Here is another article from Science Daily from Feb this year on a study by John Ruben, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University saying that, quote: " The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.
"We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."
Almost 20 years of research at OSU on the morphology of birds and dinosaurs, along with other studies and the newest PNAS research, Ruben said, are actually much more consistent with a different premise -- that birds may have had an ancient common ancestor with dinosaurs, but they evolved separately on their own path, and after millions of years of separate evolution birds also gave rise to the raptors. Small animals such as velociraptor that have generally been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds, he said."
Now the dinosaurs descended from birds! It's pretty obvious that the experts in these fields don't know "what" happened or "when" something did if indeed it did at all.
Here's what drives me nuts. I'll come on here and ask a perfectly reasonable question about proof of statements you people make. I get told, essentially, that I don't know or care what I'm talking about and that I'm preaching. i thought science was about evidence and testable proof. But somehow I'm wrong for asking for the proof that backs your statements. Now, it's obvious that there is disagreement between the experts in the fields. To the point that now according to Ruben the rest of you have had it ass backwards all this time. Yet you people get on here and in schools and colleges and in print put this stuff out like it's been empirically proven and if a yo yo like me disputes it, I'm an idiot.
Your own experts can't even agree amongst themselves but the rest of us are supposed to buy this? How is that logical or reasonable?
killozapJul 15, 2010
But there are always scientists who do not buy the "mainstream" theories. Theories are meant to be falsified, so it's normal for scientists to "disagree amongst themselves". These disagreements don't stem from lack of evidence in support; quite the contrary, these disagreements are there simply because that is exactly how science works. How else could knowledge progress if not through these debates? But just because there are debates on whether dinosaurs evolved into birds doesn't mean there aren't "proof" for it. I briefly looked up the names of the scientists you posted and I fail to find an opposing argument; they merely state their disatisfaction of the current theory without grounds to back their statements.
I must admit though, it's the first time I've heard of birds-into-dinosaur and it does seem quite interesting.
bosticasterJul 15, 2010
I agree with you that scientists disagree at times. I agree with you that scientific debate is crucial to knowledge progressing. But scientists "don't" debate on what's been "proven." For example, scientists "don't" debate on whether or not there is gravity and it's properties or what a magnetic field is and it's properties. Why? Because these are "proven" scientific, repeatedly tested facts. Evolutionary theory "isn't" proven. It's "not" repeatedly testable. You can't test a singularity. You can't go back and record or test the universe coming into being. You can't go back and record or test a species evolving into another one, if it ever happened and no one has ever shown it has. It's a singularity. At "best" all you can do is speculate. And that's exactly what the theory of evolution is, scientific speculation. But the problem is that it's not taught as a theory or scientific speculation. It's taught as "hard, proven" science. Even though there are "huge" gaps in the theory and the evidence is either "not" clear, missing or so murky that experts are contradicting themselves. The evolution of birds isn't the only problem. You've got a big bang that contradicts physics and comes into being from nothing. You have abiogenesis where life spontaneously comes into being from nothing, contradicting one of the first tenets of physics, "from nothing, nothing comes." Evolutionary theory has a boatload of problems and it just seems to me that the people pushing it need to realize this, get some humility and admit that evolution hasn't been proven and stop acting like it has. Below are some links by the scientists that I quoted where they share why they have a problem with the status quo. The evidence they give is just as compelling as the theories they're contradicting.
http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/breakdialogue
http://www.research.ku.edu/explore/v2n2/dino2.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm
spongya77Jul 15, 2010
I started to take you seriously until your last post... Too bad. (At least I save some time by not trying to debate anything with you.)
The whole "theory", and "proven" thing is very misinformed; it's at best ignorance on how science works, at worst a straw man argument trying to derail any meaningful debate.
Look up "scientific theory", "species", and "proof of evolution". Or just surf on Pubmed searching for articles on evolution.
bosticasterJul 15, 2010
This is exactly what happened the last time I tried to get some straight answers about this. I was on reddit and brought up theses same points. They did just what you're doing, avoid it. You take the arrogant stand of " Well, I'm not going to waste my time conversing with with you." Well, I could do the same thing. I could espouse "anything" and when someone shows me evidence that there's a problem with the position I can just say" I'm not going to bother with you, you're "obviously" intellectually beneath the subject. Go Google something." What a colossally arrogant attitude. I gave you links to scientists that disagree with you. I've given you reasonable propositions as to why I believe you're wrong and you answer "none" of it. I've tried to treat the subject with respect. If I don't understand how it works, why don't you explain it to me? This is exactly what I was referring to with you people not being objective or humble enough to accept that there are problems and you blindly accept anything that someone like Dawkins says without even researching it. You obviously had no clue that there were major disagreements on the subject but "I'm" the one who doesn't get it? Arrogance. Pure, blind myopic arrogance.
killozapJul 15, 2010
I've noticed that you put quotes around "proven". That, I presume, means that at least you understand that nothing is ever "proven" in science. In fact, take your own examples, gravity and magnetic fields are constantly under debate. Is there such a thing called graviton? How accurate is general relativity? What exactly causes magnetic fields? All of these have theories behind them and yet are constantly open to debate. Then you bring up testability. You seem to think that evolutionary biology is different from other sciences in that it cannot be tested in a lab. If the test you ask for is to reproduce the entire history of the Earth then obviously it is impractical. However, evolution, as a theory, can make predictions and such predictions can be and has been tested against observations. Evolutionary biology is much like astronomy in this regard. You cannot make a star system in a lab but you can still propose theories as to how a system is formed and test it against what you observe in numerous star-forming nebulae. The general public is usually unsatisfied with science because they demand quick and solid answers. But too often in science all you get are slow progress and a bunch of statistics that give you a value within certain significance range.
iveplayedjesusJul 14, 2010
How do you know dinosaurs didn't evolve from birds?
iwantawiiJul 14, 2010
God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs.
katie82Jul 15, 2010
Dinosaurs eat Man. Woman inherits the earth.
antimrbabymanJul 15, 2010
Dugg for the only women on digg making a funny. Well played ma'am.
jiijiiJul 15, 2010
You're only saying that to get into her pants. Dugg for effort.
syntaxgsJul 15, 2010
the Egg is First,, becosue the Egg have to hatch The Bird,, it ovious
brizzyceJul 15, 2010
Oh hi syntaxgs, I almost didn't see you there.
handonamJul 15, 2010
stunning revelation....
the breakthrough of this magnitude is STAGGERING.
pflight400Jul 15, 2010
Syntaxgs...you never seem to underwhelm me...I LOVE YOU
antdudeJul 15, 2010
"Laid"
awdsmirkJul 15, 2010
Now scientists can move onto the next age-old question of 'Why did the chicken cross the road?"
m0lariaJul 15, 2010
Man creates dinosaur, dinosaur eats man, woman inherits the earth.
evilgourmetJul 15, 2010
Single cell organisms are essentially 'eggs' -- so eggs came first.
brblol70Jul 14, 2010
How does that prove anything?
frankntankJul 14, 2010
Read the article, not the title.
holychickenJul 14, 2010
The article didn't prove anything other than the fact that the scientist who made the claim is either an idiot or was joking.
hurricanedcJul 14, 2010
Pure motherf**kin' magic.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
f**king eggs, how do they hatch?
gigglestickJul 14, 2010
From the inside, generally.
dream0weaverJul 15, 2010
And I don't wanna ask a c**k, ya'll mothaf**kaz cluckin' and gettin' me pissed.
mxm111Jul 14, 2010
f**king mother with magic? This is how Jesus was born? So the answer is chicken?
/The confused.
dwotJul 14, 2010
s**t'll blow ya' motherf**kin' mind.
savageindustrieJul 15, 2010
It's all around you, you don't even know it.
mindfoldedJul 14, 2010
Not an Onion article?
skintighJul 14, 2010
Seriously. I was expecting an article on evolutionary biology and how some other proto-bird evolved into a chicken, but instead they are talking about which one spontaneously appeared on Earth? WTF?
picaloJul 14, 2010
3 idiots.
how can an egg be layed without the animal? its impossible, its very VERY simple logic.
ive been saying this for YEARS and im only 22!
you can't make a baby of any kind (that is the same as you or close to it like a chicken having a chicken...and not a dinasaur birthing a half chicken or what have you)
so you would be required to have both the rooster and chicken...prior to the egg coming around...SIMPLE.
all the morons i explained this to could not grasp it...glad some one can...dont care how they figured it out...its very simple.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cloudberriesJul 14, 2010
How can the animal be birthed without the egg?
I assume in the many years you've been thinking about this, you haven't actually thought about it that much?
homer524Jul 14, 2010
But how can the egg be layed without the animal?
OMG its a vicious cycle...
or maybe its a continuous spectrum of evolutionary descent without either being clearly first... meh whatever
juankovoJul 14, 2010
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
mrcacaJul 14, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
picaloJul 14, 2010
exactly.
so a chicken egg must be layed BY A CHICKEN...dips
picaloJul 14, 2010
no what im saying is this, the egg layed by another animal CAN NOT be a chicken egg...by definition alone.
and to create an entire chicken (100% chicken as we know now...without the hormones of course) you qould require a rooster and a chicken...to create a true chicken...a mutation of the first chicken is unlikely without the mutation of a rooster which gives rise to a a question...was the first chicken A sexual? or were roosters already around?
yeah digging me down for not understanding context and information is really sad.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cloudberriesJul 14, 2010
Well if you'd actually said "How can a chicken egg be layed without a chicken? If it's not a chicken laying it, it's not a chicken egg", then yes, most people would have understood what you meant. And yes, a chicken is required to lay a chicken egg. And stop calling people morons and idiots, it really doesn't help your argument.
But how would you define a chicken? Say you had evolutionary step #1, where a dinosaur starts growing feathers and clucking, and evolutionary step #1000 where you have there a clucking, feathered chicken. Say at evolutionary step #500 this "thing" starts figuring out how to lay eggs. When would you call that thing a chicken?
Actually, didn't dinosaurs lay eggs? Hence the egg came first if we're talking purely about eggs and not chicken eggs. Then dinosaurs evolved into chickens. And then chicken eggs turned up? So Egg > Chicken > Chicken Egg
picaloJul 14, 2010
yes i agree...
but a chicken must lay the egg for it to be (within logic) a CHICKEN egg...
until they can prove another species was laying eggs out that are identical and that they made chickens....its a fail for any argument other than chickens came first.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cloudberriesJul 14, 2010
If we're talking purely semantics, then yes. For an egg to be a chicken egg, it must be laid by an animal called a chicken, and for something to be called a chicken, it has to hatch from a chicken egg.
rhendalJul 14, 2010
But what would define the chicken and rooster that laid the egg? According to your logic, you need a 100% rooster and 100% chicken to make a 100% chicken egg...but you're not taking into account what birthed the first rooster and chicken in the first place. According to you, the first rooster and chicken could never exist because nothing could ever lay and hatch the eggs they would have to come out of.
Also, your question about chickens being asexual or if roosters were around is flawed too. The rooster is just a male version of a chicken; but you worded it like they are some different kind of bird species, and it's obvious chickens are not and never were asexual.
gerz1219Jul 14, 2010
Speciation is fluid. Chickens and all other birds share a common ancestor. As populations of that common ancestor began to diverge genetically, they gradually became genetically incompatible with each other. Once two populations become incapable of producing fertile offspring, they are considered different species.
For instance, a horse and a donkey are just barely genetically similar enough to reproduce. The resulting offspring is called a mule and they are nearly always infertile. Therefore we consider horses and donkeys to be two distinct species.
Modern farm chickens are a domesticated breed of red jungle fowl (with which they can freely interbreed). The red jungle fowl in turn became a distinct species from its closest bird relative a long time ago. All of these organisms laid eggs, and there was no one single generation at which they became chicken eggs. Instead their identity existed along a continuum defined by genetic proximity.
The anatomical framework for modern bird eggs began with the first multicellular organism that decided to release egg cells into the water rather than reproduce asexually. Some asexual members of this organism's species must have spontaneously adapted their reproductive organs to fertilize these eggs. Therefore, the ancestral chicken came before the ancestral egg. But it's all irrelevant when we're talking about modern chickens, because we know that chickens and their ancestors have laid eggs for millions of years.
sageerrantJul 14, 2010
You all seem to be defining "chicken egg" as the egg laid by a chicken. I would define it as the egg from which a chicken hatches, as the contents of the egg ARE that future chicken. That is to say, the egg becomes a chicken.
Most of those eggs would also have been laid by chickens, true... but look back to the first chicken, wherever you want to draw that line. That first chicken must have hatched from an egg laid by a non-chicken, and was itself that egg before hatching. If you name that egg for the creature it becomes, you must conclude that the chicken egg came (immediately) before the chicken.
gerz1219Jul 15, 2010
Well, the common misconception is that there is a "first chicken," a single generational line behind which the proto-chickens can no longer mate and produce fertile offspring with the modern-chickens. Speciation doesn't work this way. There is never a single generation of a population which has instantaneously undergone such drastic genetic change that it becomes its own distinct species.
This is related to a larger misconception about the way in which mutations influence genetic change over time -- the idea that a proto-chicken undergoes a single mutation and the last tumbler falls into place and suddenly it's a modern-chicken. Remember that in order for two populations to be distinct species, they must not be able to produce fertile offspring. Well, if a single proto-chicken were to be born with a mutation so drastic that it could not mate with the other proto-chickens in its population, then it would be infertile. There would be no proto-chickens with whom it could mate and pass on its mutation, and the mutation would therefore die.
On the contrary, when beneficial mutations occur, they spread throughout a population precisely because the mutated individuals are able to breed freely with the non-mutated individuals. How else would the mutation be preserved in the population?
So there is never a generational line at which one could point at a mutated proto-chicken and call it a modern chicken. Perhaps if you took a modern-chicken back in time, 100,000 chicken-generations earlier, they might have some difficulty successfully mating with a proto-chicken. But the fertility level would be a dwindling percentage of fertile offspring the further back you went; it wouldn't be an on/off switch.
Therefore we can only consider the first egg to have hatched billions of years ago when the first multicellular organism mutated and began releasing egg cells into the water instead of reproducing asexually. Which means the organism came before the egg.
firesoul1Jul 14, 2010
The very shell of the egg is comprised from materials found in the ovaries of the chicken.
no chicken means no ovaries, no ovaries means no egg shell.
the animal as we know today as a chicken may have a completely different ancestor which evolved to a chicken.
picaloJul 14, 2010
exactly which still means the chicken came first. even if it came from another egg...the chicken had to come first to lay a chicken egg...pretty simple logic....i get dug down for ultra simple logic THAT WORKS.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Can I buy some weed?
carbonetcJul 14, 2010
Your argument hinges on whether the ownership of the egg goes to the one who lays it or the one who hatches out of it. If it's the one who lays it, the chicken comes first (and then we have to worry about whether the chick is also a chicken, since the rooster was not). If it's the one who hatches out of it, the egg comes first. The question is ambiguous -- it doesn't ask us whether the chicken or the egg-laid-by-a-chicken comes first, it asks us whether a chicken or an unspecific egg comes first. The rooster problem would indicate to me that ownership of the egg should go to the one who hatches out of it, since the mother can only own the egg by half.
The question itself is silly because it hinges on there being a such thing as a pure chicken -- a Platonic ideal of chickenhood. But no such thing exists. Life is a gradient. Only creationists are befuddled by this question because they're the only ones who believe in pure chickens.
canuckJul 14, 2010
"(and then we have to worry about whether the chick is also a chicken, since the rooster was not).
There is nothing to worry about; a chicken egg produces a chicken. It may be male (a rooster), or it may be female (a hen). Both are still chickens.
carbonetcJul 14, 2010
@Canuck
"There is nothing to worry about; a chicken egg produces a chicken."
Not according to someone who defines a chicken egg as an egg laid by a chicken (vs. an egg that hatches a chicken).
Pretending there's a such thing as a pure chicken in the first place, say the very first chicken which has ever walked the Earth emerges via mutation. She has only proto-chickens to mate with. She produces offspring which are 50% chicken and 50% proto-chicken. If we define a chicken egg as an egg laid by a pure chicken, then chicken eggs do not necessarily produce chickens. In this scenario they CANNOT produce chickens, only hybrids.
This is why it makes more sense to name the egg after what hatches from it. What lays it only determines 50% of the chick's makeup, so what lays it is only 50% relevant.
holychickenJul 14, 2010
I couldn't disagree with you more.
According to evolution, the immediate predecessor to the chicken must have hatched a mutated version of itself known now as the chicken. So that chicken had to be inside that egg, thus the egg came first.
A bird that does not lay an egg would not be a chicken, so there is no way for a chicken to come first. It's not possible and the article doesn't even remotely prove the opposite.
McScoliosisJul 14, 2010
I'm sorry, I just have to laugh at your name in this context; perhaps the chicken came first via immaculate chicken conception. I'm done now.
holychickenJul 14, 2010
You have a point, but I don't count. ;)
leif777Jul 14, 2010
So then if a non-evolved chicken that produced the evolved chicken, did it lay a mutated egg and as result develop todays evolved chicken or was it the chicken fetus that mutated from a non-evolved egg?
McScoliosisJul 14, 2010
The article, as I read it, only states that the chicken egg as we know it, physically, is only possible with an actual chicken. If you were to try planting an undeveloped fertilized chicken egg cell in a surrogate mother, the shell wouldn't produce in the same way.
The offspring would still be a chicken, if the transplant functioned properly, but the egg would look different, maybe profoundly because it didn't have the same protein exposure. As others have stated, it's semantics and philosophy; is it a chicken egg because of the parent, or a chicken egg because of its occupant?
danj484Jul 14, 2010
Except that if you're assuming that suddenly a rooster and hen appeared, it's equally (un)likely that an egg would suddenly appear.
thanakarJul 14, 2010
Next from the DUH department...
diggeradoJul 14, 2010
Agreed. "Age-old puzzle"? What crap!
If you believe in creation: the chicken came first
If you believe in evolution: the egg came first.
Brain-dead simple.
frankntankJul 14, 2010
Not necessarily, it's possible that 2 now-extinct animals mated to create the chicken, which was birthed not hatched. You can't under analyze this so far as to say creationism has one answer and evolutionism has the other.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
designerutahJul 14, 2010
Agreed. Single cell becomes multi-cell is the first stage of the "egg" from a parent. Prior to that it was complex proteins to formation of the single-cell. No one knows how that was done. Theories, yes, but different argument than the egg v. chicken.
tsuruchibrianJul 14, 2010
It is simple, but not for the reason you indicate.
A: If you think a chicken egg is an egg a chicken lays: the chicken came first.
B: f you think a chicken egg is an egg with a chicken in it: then the egg came first.
At one point in history, no matter where you want to draw the line between proto-chickens and modern chickens, a non-chicken laid an egg with a chicken inside it. Is this egg a chicken egg or not?
The fallacy is that A and B are always equivalent.
diggeradoJul 14, 2010
FrankNTank, that's a pretty clever answer, but what are the odds that a mammal birthed the first chicken?
somerandomguyJul 14, 2010
TsuruchiBrian: That's not correct.
If you think a chicken egg is an egg with a chicken inside it, the chicken comes first. The DNA for "chicken" was written into what type of egg it was before it becomes the actual "egg". Meaning the chicken part of the equation came first.
tsuruchibrianJul 14, 2010
@SomeRandomGuy
You are just assuming A is true to prove B is false, but that is not really a logical argument. This is not a scientific or biological paradox. This is a semantic problem involving an implied equivocation between the definitions of a chicken egg in A and B.
megadeth222Jul 14, 2010
Gah I've been telling this to people for years now, they never listen.
gnodyknokJul 14, 2010
so what they are saying is that the chicken egg we know and love today didn't come first... Does not mean our first chicken didn't come from an egg!
moducJul 14, 2010
No the egg can come first. That's how it becomes a chicken. Whatever chemical required for the egg to develop, can come from a pre-chicken animal. They didn't prove that only chicken can possess those chemical. For example, a chicken's ancestor which is not a chicken, can somehow mutate, and develop the ability to produce the chemical, but its other makeup are not chicken. Look, leg, head, etc, not the today's chicken, only the part that produce the egg is similar to today's chicken. When that happens, then the chicken's egg is produced, and then the chicken.
infinitenothingJul 15, 2010
Yes, that's what they are saying. I see no reason to define a chicken so strictly and define an egg so loosely. That is, why can't there be a chicken that lays a protoegg that hatches to become a chicken that can produce THE egg in question.
bezzJul 14, 2010
Eggs obviously came first. Proto-chickens laid eggs until their descendents evolved into the current chicken.
Or, if you believe in the man who lives in the clouds, god pressed the create chicken button on The Sims 27.
rudegarJul 14, 2010
no he could have pressed the create egg button, and then the holy ghost impregnated the egg afterwards!
boneheadfarkerJul 14, 2010
Dude...not even the holy ghost wants to f**k an egg. Too messy...
colecoman1982Jul 14, 2010
I, for one, welcome out, immaculately conceived, chicken messiah.
McScoliosisJul 14, 2010
http://ursulav.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d7uytq
kook321Jul 14, 2010
I agree. The proton found in the chicken's ovaries does not indicate the chicken came first. The species of which it evolved from could have had the protein and produce the modern day chicken egg.
johnnyrottenJul 14, 2010
Don't be silly. He doesn't live in the clouds. Nobody lives in clouds. He lives in Cleveland. It keeps Him humble.
onedeepJul 14, 2010
I agree. Protochicken lays protochicken egg. Protochicken inside protochicken egg mutates to chicken. Chicken hatches from protochicken egg. Chicken lays chicken egg.
carbonetcJul 14, 2010
Chicken hatches from protochicken egg. Chicken lays half-chicken half-protochicken egg (the rooster must have been a protochicken). Gradually the population increases its percentage of chickenhood if chickenhood provides a survival advantage.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
I think the scientists know about dinosaurs. They just didn't want to be too wordy and use chicken as relation to an organism. An egg does not just appear out of no where. Cells come from preexisting cells. Formation of egg comes later.
m0og0oJul 14, 2010
@bezz
did you not read the article?
peynisJul 14, 2010
Not too many years ago, I've also read an article about how a team of scientists and philosophers have "proven" that the egg came first, with basically the same explanation as yours.
This article says it's because of a protein that can only be found in the chicken's ovaries, but how the hell do they know that the chicken's direct ancestors didn't have the same protein? Well, they might know, but the damn article doesn't tell us. The fact that it's because of some protein is the only information the article actually gives about why the chicken was supposed to come first, while the rest of the article simply states some completely irrelevant names to impress the crowds...
Oh, they're professors from some university? They even used a supercomputer? Then it's gotta be true!
However, if only today's chicken were able to lay eggs from which today's chicken would hatch, where the hell did the chicken come from?
kooftJul 15, 2010
Zapp: "Rock crushes scissors! But paper covers rock. And scissors cuts paper! Kif, we have a conundrum."
Kif: *sigh*
Zapp: "Search them for paper! And ... bring me a rock!"
cyberfixaJul 15, 2010
Wow, my biology teacher had the same exact explanation as bezz. He said that people that say the chicken came first are creationists while people that say the egg came first are evolutionists.
I pick the egg.
datastorageguyJul 15, 2010
Give it a rest already.
lukas1051Jul 14, 2010
I've always though this was a stupid argument anyway? I mean, at what point did whatever came before the chicken evolve into a chicken? Surely it's the single-celled organism that came first.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
I always thought it was a philosophical question rather than a scientific one.
mcnerdJul 14, 2010
Well, originally I'm sure philosophers and scientists alike puzzled over it. But the question has long since been answered, so it's been reduced to an aphorism whose value lies solely in the fact that it's useful in forming metaphors.
It's not even an interesting philosophical issue anymore, really. It SOUNDS like a philosophical question, which is to say that people will think you're smart if you ask it at the right time, but that's about it.
nofrickenwayJul 15, 2010
Science would say that a tree that fell in the woods with no one around to hear it produces a sound too. Just cause I'm not there to measure it doesn't mean it's not there. It just doesn't "exist" to me. Moss will still grow on the felled tree, wind will be created, and most importantly sound waves will effect the area.
raiderduckJul 14, 2010
Of course the chicken came first, because the chicken had to get laid before the egg could be laid.
rootsm3Jul 15, 2010
...
firesoul1Jul 14, 2010
THE POWER OF SCIENCE!
crazedleperJul 14, 2010
The power of plagiarism. I read that in the Bible. You're being taken for a ride. Bon voyage.
designerutahJul 14, 2010
And the Bible got it from the Summerians, but don't let that stop your belief.
Here's a hint: Take a look at ancient legends, scrolls and religious writings. You'll find a lot of the most notable Biblical stories show up in earlier writings from nearby regions. Some are hundreds of years earlier, others even older. Bible writers borrowed heavily from their neighbors!
ray4389Jul 14, 2010
Who's to say that they weren't all believing in the same God?
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
No POWER OF GOD
texasshivJul 14, 2010
So the protochicken laid the egg(thus it is a protochicken egg) that gave birth to the current chicken, which has been laying eggs ever since.
Hasn't this been agreed upon for quite some time?
picaloJul 14, 2010
yep thats why the chicken came first...read...or well logic would have helped MANY people if they would have just thought about it with logic.
cyberfixaJul 15, 2010
No.
karthikophobiaJul 14, 2010
So now the question is how was the protochicken born?
texasshivJul 14, 2010
From another protochicken...? I don't understand...
treshnellJul 14, 2010
But if the egg has a chicken in it...isn't it a chicken egg?
sageerrantJul 15, 2010
That has always been my stance. It seems silly not to attach chickenhood to an egg which contains the complete material which will grow into a chicken.
dontthinksoJul 15, 2010
Yes, but that's not what the article is referring to.
The article talks about the order in development; the egg forms first, then the not-yet-a-chicken-fetus.
overtokeJul 15, 2010
it's bulls**t, everything before and including the protochicken could be called a protochicken
the egg came first
smihalikJul 14, 2010
All life evolve from a single-celled organism. This is stupid.
picaloJul 14, 2010
wow you think you know fact dont you?
i assume if you lived before they found out the earth was rounded you would furiously fight about it being flat.
god i hate your type.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
raiderduckJul 14, 2010
OK, smart guy. Without resorting to ancient superstitions, what's your version of how life as we know it came to be?
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Quit feeding the troll, folks.
kulordsJul 14, 2010
Mind = Blown
jantikJul 14, 2010
Blown came first
picaloJul 14, 2010
no wind came first...
jantikJul 14, 2010
therefore, Mind = Air
snoogsJul 14, 2010
This article says nothing about the origins of chickens or eggs.
juankovoJul 14, 2010
So the chicken and the egg were lying in bed. The chicken took a drag on her cigarette and said, "well, I guess we answered THAT question!"
samslaterJul 14, 2010
Wouldn't a chicken laying in bed with an egg be chicken paedophilia?
snoogsJul 14, 2010
So... who came first?
ahhbrendanJul 14, 2010
Any mutation is going to happen before the egg is layed. Therefore, the last stage in going from almost-chicken to full-chicken occurred with an egg. I suppose it is possible that an almost-chicken mutated while alive due to radiation and went full-chicken, but that's a pretty slim chance, and the only way I can imagine that the chicken came first.
deviantdragonJul 14, 2010
Everyone knows you never go full chicken.
bgthebrainJul 14, 2010
I knew I shouldve brought my bong to work today.
xsecretfilesJul 14, 2010
God creating the chicken, chicken created eggs.
hazmatsuitJul 14, 2010
God tasted the egg, and it was good.
crazedleperJul 14, 2010
They need the answer to be something else so that they can enjoy themselves in the absence of him that they preferred to living according to law. Deep down, though, they know.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
whateverhesaidJul 14, 2010
Why don't you go ahead and quote Dr. Suess next? It would be just as meaningful.
bdawg123Jul 14, 2010
I am God, God I am.
Let there be green eggs and ham.
charlesdkraussJul 14, 2010
That's not evidence. You might want to look up the definition.
By your logic Greek Mythology is evidence.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
It's a story, not evidence.
designerutahJul 14, 2010
That's not evidence. But it could be an indication. I love how you decide you know better how to interpret this passage and in the same breath just ignore the literal tons of evidence (both from the fossil record and lab tests) that support the current Theory of Evolution.
BTW: people that don't share your fantasy don't secretly believe in it but just enjoy sinning. Honestly, we don't believe at all. It carries no more weight than when someone says, "If you don't clap, Tinkerbell is going to die!" The threat, and the danger is the same... none at all.
snoogsJul 14, 2010
The story of creation precedes the Bible by thousands of years... it's not like Christianity suddenly popped that idea out... unfortunately, people want to shake their fists saying "my religion is right, and everyone else is going to Hell" over word-of-mouth tales passed on from generations.
crazedleperJul 14, 2010
@CharlesDKrauss said:
"That's not evidence. You might want to look up the definition."
Testimony is evidence.
-----------------------------------
"By your logic Greek Mythology is evidence."
Evidence of what? If Greek Mythology harmonizes with empirical evidence, so be it. It's not related to this discussion, though.
-------------------------------------------------
@ZaphodBeeb said:
"It's a story, not evidence. "
The "story" seems to fit the evidence so the "story" must be true.
------------------------------------------
@designerutah said:
"That's not evidence. "
Testimony is evidence in every court in history
------------------------------
"But it could be an indication. "
How's that different from what I said?
------------------------------
"I love how you decide you know better how to interpret this passage and in the same breath just ignore the literal tons of evidence (both from the fossil record and lab tests) that support the current Theory of Evolution."
Maybe you want to read my comment again. You seemed to cite a discrepancy where none exists. How would life or living systems, or fossils be any different if they came about exactly the way the Bible said? The Bible said "let the earth put forth". You're looking at the earth and saying "it came from the mud". I fail to see the difference.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
charlesdkraussJul 14, 2010
@CrazedLeper
You really think that a testimony that "might" work in a court room is scientific evidence? Let me tell you, the universe does not give a s**t what you believe. It doesn't give a s**t about a testimony that would work in a court room. What matters is what is actually true or not. In regards to scientific evidence a testimony will not prove/disprove s**t.
I'd like to see how you can prove that the bible is empirical evidence where greek mythology is not. Neither one are empirical. Greek mythology was written in to books long before the bible was written. Jesus christ is not even an original story for f**ks sake. It was taken from previous stories and characters such as Horus and Osiris, among several others.
jeremy1967Jul 14, 2010
"I am God, God I am.
Let there be green eggs and ham."
Dr. Zeus FTW!
crazedleperJul 14, 2010
@CharlesDKrauss said:
"You really think that a testimony that "might" work in a court room is scientific evidence?"
Is that what I said? It doesn't sound like what I said. What I said is "testimony is evidence".
--------------------------------------------
"Let me tell you, the universe does not give a s**t what you believe. "
I well know it but beliefs weren't the issue. Testimony and evidence is. Try to stay on topic.
--------------------------------------------
"It doesn't give a s**t about a testimony that would work in a court room. What matters is what is actually true or not. In regards to scientific evidence a testimony will not prove/disprove s**t."
Let me try this from another angle... The TESTIMONY was written thousands of years before a gaggle of pedants got loose and started examining everything under microscopes in the hopes of finding a non-God answer to their existence. Eventually, they found some stuff and it didn't contradict what was written but they keep saying it does because they REALLY don't want to go to church.
----------------------------------------
"I'd like to see how you can prove that the bible is empirical evidence where greek mythology is not. "
Greek mythology has nothing to do with this. Stay on topic. The Bible proves itself. You haven't read it; you just keep repeating what you heard other people say is in there. Furthermore, it's not for me to prove to you, it's for you to prove to yourself and you already chose not to.
----------------------------------------
"Neither one are empirical. "
It's written and it stands up to scrutiny, that's all it needs to do. Frankly, I'm quite unimpressed with your johnny-come-lately standards of evidence which you use as blinders to keep yourself focused on what you want to see.
----------------------------------------
"Greek mythology was written in to books long before the bible was written. "
Irrelevant. Stay on topic. the Bible is everything it needs to be and everything it could have been. Writing was a daunting task all those years ago. Should God have given Moses a copy of the human genome to copy by hand and pass down to successive generations? Really, what for? Is that what it would have taken to satisfy you? Your expectations are unreasonable.
----------------------------
"Jesus christ is not even an original story for f**ks sake. It was taken from previous stories and characters such as Horus and Osiris, among several others."
There isn't anything that hasn't been said about Jesus Christ. You're just the latest in a long line of detractors that knows nothing of what you speak, still, you keep talking.
-------------------------------------
"I really hope you are not spreading this information around. You might as well go around saying Santa Clause is real, there's as much evidence (lack of) for him as there is for a god."
Santa Claus is real. Do people not go to great lengths to honor him every year? You just don't know who he is--or, more accurately, who's hiding behind the persona.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
charlesdkraussJul 14, 2010
@CrazedLeper -
"Is that what I said? It doesn't sound like what I said. What I said is "testimony is evidence".
No, testimony is not scientific evidence. Get that through your head. Go tell any science professor that testimony is scientific evidence and they will laugh at you. When talking about the universe and the theories that explain it you need scientific evidence, not a testimony.
--------------------------------------------
I" well know it but beliefs weren't the issue. Testimony and evidence is. Try to stay on topic."
Read above. And beliefs are the issue. You have beliefs that are merely based on faith, no scientific evidence. They have not been proven to be true, and very likely never will.
--------------------------------------------
"Let me try this from another angle... The TESTIMONY was written thousands of years before a gaggle of pedants got loose and started examining everything under microscopes in the hopes of finding a non-God answer to their existence. Eventually, they found some stuff and it didn't contradict what was written but they keep saying it does because they REALLY don't want to go to church."
EVERYTHING found in science contradicts what is written in your stupid bible. The more science advances the further and further religion is pushed back until everything is going to be purely symbolic. That's the only defense religion has, and it's a horrible one. That same stupid illogical defense can be used to defend the flying spaghetti monster or zues.
You really think THAT is the reason people don't go to church? That's f**king moronic. Atheists don't go to church because religion is BULLs**t, it's FICTION, it's a bunch of god damn stories. There is no proof or evidence for any of it. I would no more go to a church than I would go to ANY other foundation of something that is based on faith alone. The bible doesn't even have hardly any good moral lessons. It has rape, incest, murder, punishments, torture, etc.
----------------------------------------
"Greek mythology has nothing to do with this. Stay on topic. The Bible proves itself. You haven't read it; you just keep repeating what you heard other people say is in there. Furthermore, it's not for me to prove to you, it's for you to prove to yourself and you already chose not to."
Greek mythology doesn't have anything to do specifically with arguments against the bible, but it does parallel the same positions that modern religions are trying to hold. The stories were written by fallible men to try and explain the unexplainable. People REALLY believed what is in those stories just like people believe what's in the bible. However, there is no proof or evidence for what is in greek mythology, and there is no proof or evidence for what is in the bible. They both are/were used to try and control people and explain natural phenomena.
----------------------------------------
"It's written and it stands up to scrutiny, that's all it needs to do. Frankly, I'm quite unimpressed with your johnny-come-lately standards of evidence which you use as blinders to keep yourself focused on what you want to see."
What scrutiny? It doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. Prove what the hell you are talking about. I'm neither impressed or unimpressed by how ignorant you seem to be, I'm really not surprised, religious people, especially ones like you are always talking craziness.
----------------------------------------
"Irrelevant. Stay on topic. the Bible is everything it needs to be and everything it could have been. Writing was a daunting task all those years ago. Should God have given Moses a copy of the human genome to copy by hand and pass down to successive generations? Really, what for? Is that what it would have taken to satisfy you? Your expectations are unreasonable."
It is relevant. The bible is a great work of fiction, nothing more. Actually yes if god would have given moses a copy of the human genome it might give some credibility to the whole idea of a god, but it would be a really odd outlier for sure. Bottom line is nothing like that is in the bible, there's no good reason to believe anything of what is written in it is true.
----------------------------
"There isn't anything that hasn't been said about Jesus Christ. You're just the latest in a long line of detractors that knows nothing of what you speak, still, you keep talking."
I suggest you read about the parallels of jesus, horus, and osiris. The story of jesus was plagiarized.
-------------------------------------
"Santa Claus is real. Do people not go to great lengths to honor him every year? You just don't know who he is--or, more accurately, who's hiding behind the persona."
Santa Clause is real too huh? Damn you really are nuts.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
"Let me try this from another angle... The TESTIMONY was written thousands of years before a gaggle of pedants got loose and started examining everything under microscopes in the hopes of finding a non-God answer to their existence."
Really, leper? Science did not start to prove or disprove the existence of god or gods. Many notable scientists, Darwin among them were Christians. The big bang theory was first proposed by a priest, FFS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Believe in gods if you want, but creationism is just idiotic and there's no evidence for it.
mizzrymJul 14, 2010
"It's a story, not evidence. "
The "story" seems to fit the evidence so the "story" must be true.
That logic is so wrong I am embarrassed for you. Don't ever take up a career in science.
charlesdkraussJul 14, 2010
@missrym - That's a good point, I'm ashamed I forgot to make that point.
By his logic we can say: "There is an invisible man who pulls the sun around the world constantly, creating about 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of dark, depending on how fast he goes." The observation would seem to fit the story, so it must be true!
crazedleperJul 14, 2010
@ZaphodBeeb said:
"Science did not start to prove or disprove the existence of god or gods. "
I didn't say it did.
---------------------------------------------
"Many notable scientists, Darwin among them were Christians. The big bang theory was first proposed by a priest, FFS."
I was aware of that and the "big bang" theory does not conflict with the Bible. It's is, however, irrelevant. The Bible never said *how* the universe was created. I suggest you review Gen 1:1. It couldn't be explained to Moses with the language he already knew and what would have been the point of going into detail? What do we do with details? We use details to change things, don't we? It wasn't like Moses (writer of Genesis) could have changed the universe, redesigned it or even escaped it. It's entirely irrelevant *how* the universe (or life) was created and it's a red herring, too.
If God really did create the universe, how do you know in what way's it would be different? How do you know that this isn't *exactly* what you would have done if you, somehow, had the option of creating a universe? How do you know what someone who *could* create a universe would do if you're not that person? You'll either take his word for it or you'll believe what you want to believe. You have, clearly, chosen the latter.
---------------------------------------------
"Believe in gods if you want, but creationism is just idiotic and there's no evidence for it."
Yes, there is but you keep wanting to see something else when you look at it, so you do.
---------------------------------------------
@mizzrym said:
"That logic is so wrong I am embarrassed for you. Don't ever take up a career in science."
What is it with you drones!? Get your head out of Einstein's butt! Everything isn't about "science". Science is good at what it's good at: making stuff. Science falls short as a lens on life because it can't see beyond the things in front of it. You cannot make a universe from anything that's in it, you must have something *else*.
You can never fully understand anything unless you can reach it's origin. You cannot fully understand the universe from the inside no matter what you do. You cannot come to fully-understand life as a person who resulted from whatever the process was that led to your existence. You can, however, spend your whole life chasing down irrelevant details in the hope that you'll run out of time before you realize the futility of your vain pursuit.
-------------------------------------
@CharlesDKrauss said:
"By his logic we can say: "There is an invisible man who pulls the sun around the world constantly, creating about 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of dark, depending on how fast he goes." The observation would seem to fit the story, so it must be true!"
Well, if he's invisible, how do you *know* that he isn't there? You don't. You only know what you see and human sight is a rather limited lens on something as vast and complex as the universe has proved to be. You could have had some humility but arrogance is a valid choice, too.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
charlesdkraussJul 14, 2010
@CrazedLeper
These are my final points, I wont be responding again.
1. You are crazy.
2. I have a hard time deciding if you are a troll or not. If you are not I can say that I don't doubt yours and other people's convictions about god/religion, but that doesn't prove he exists, it simply doesn't, and you are delusional.
3. I hope that if you REALLY do think this way that you discover the error of your ways. Life is so much different than you are imagining right now, and it doesn't take away anything from life to accept that there is no god, it only enhances it.
4. I'm done debating with you because it's falsely elevating you to our intellectual levels. It's like arguing with a flat earther, it's pointless.
bdawg123Jul 14, 2010
CrazedLeper said - "I was aware of that and the "big bang" theory does not conflict with the Bible"
You know what does conflict with the Bible? Common f**king sense.
crazedleperJul 15, 2010
@bdawg123 said:
"You know what does conflict with the Bible? Common f**king sense."
I'm going to agree with you but only on the grounds that what has become common is utterly senseless.
crazedleperJul 15, 2010
@CharlesDKrauss said:
"...I wont be responding again."
Promise?
-------------------------------------
1. You are crazy.
Tell me something I don't know...but try to use only words that have meaning.
-------------------------------------
2. Religion is not necessary for good people to do good things. It's not necessary for our survival. It is not necessary for morals or ethics, those are inherent and also learned, religion is not needed.
Speak for *your* religion. Mine is necessary for all those things and more.
-------------------------------------
"Any good that it provides is FAR out weighed by the negatives it brings. The good things that it provides can be had without religion."
Like evolution has solved all the world's problems? Just because you don't know about all the heinous atrocities that have come to us courtesy of evolution, doesn't mean I don't know. We wouldn't have had the nazi movement and TWO WORLD WARS (so far) without evolution. Now deny it. Your religion is the worst thing that ever happened to humanity.
-------------------------------------
3. Science is the best method we have to explain EVERYTHING in the universe. You seem to think that it can't, but you are wrong. If religion can't explain something, then religion sure as hell can't either.
Not. Explain life. Thought so.
-------------------------------------
"4. I have a hard time deciding if you are a troll or not. "
I'm a hybrid troll/conspiracy theorist...and you're a government sheep.
-------------------------------------
"If you are not I can say that I don't doubt yours and other people's convictions about god/religion, but that doesn't prove he exists, it simply doesn't, and you are delusional. "
I'd be delusional if my beliefs weren't true or if they originated in my head. I have not inherited a belief set. Everything I believe I learned by doing the heavy lifting, reading and connecting the dots for myself rather than following the crowd...any crowd.
-------------------------------------
"5. I hope that if you REALLY do think this way that you discover the error of your ways. Life is so much different than you are imagining right now, and it doesn't take away anything from life to accept that there is no god, it only enhances it."
For you, perhaps. I happen to think that God is the best explanation for a universe that has had 14 billion years (in theory) to blow apart or to burn out but which has not. You don't have an explanation for that; you barely have a theory for how it started and it's not that good: "there was nothing, then it exploded". That seems just as ridiculous to me as my beliefs do to you. It seems to me the relativity justifies neither of us to assert his opinion over the other.
-------------------------------------
"6. I'm done debating with you because it's falsely elevating you to our intellectual levels. It's like arguing with a flat earther, it's pointless."
Sayonara, monkey boy.
-------------------------------------
"I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one ? " ---Albert Einstein.
morbendkJul 14, 2010
If you make the assumption that God did create the chicken; That he put it there by his design-- wouldn't it follow that he also created the egg by designing it as the method of the chicken's reproduction?
Given that, wouldn't the religious person's stance on this be: neither, they were both created at the same time by God?
--This is not a flame or insult, I'm just really perplexed.
crazedleperJul 15, 2010
It's a fair assessment...not that it matters, really. People bother themselves much too much with details like this. What's important is that God created the chicken and made 11 herbs and spices available to make it delicious. Who cares how he did it?
meribianJul 14, 2010
f**k this question. It isn't like knowing the correct answer beyond the shadow of a doubt is going to benefit my life in any way.
idiggaponyJul 14, 2010
Memo to power users: Please take half a f**king second to edit your submissions' titles and summaries into actual words and sentences.
Sincerely,
The rest of us, who are forced to look at whatever you see fit to put on the front page.
emitstopJul 14, 2010
Well, hate to burst your bubble. But the guy's not a power user.
http://digg.com/users/jekylljones
Power user normally do edit their headlines.
eraidersJul 14, 2010
On reddit, you can edit your title after submission and any user can easily make the front page, the comment threads also post responses directly under the comment with no need to navigate to a separate page.
cglassJul 15, 2010
Hi, go to reddit, bye.
jekylljonesJul 14, 2010Submitter
Sorry there for not editing my submission,i just liked the article and thought i would submit the story.
P.S i hate the idea of power users too,as i believe that digg has kinda become more dumbed down as of late.
P.P.S i'm not a power user.
fuzzzwuzzzJul 14, 2010
Eggs have existed for millions of years before chickens evolved.
The egg is the zygote of the rooster's sperm and the hen's oocyte (precursor to what we consider as the egg de facto). The formation of the zygote (fertilization) would be the moment that separates the proto-chicken (junglefowl) from the chicken. This would make the resulting egg a chicken egg, which would exist before its embryo could grow into a chicken.
A chicken and an egg are lying in bed the chicken is looking smug and smoking a cigarette. The egg says in an annoyed tone, "Well, I guess we answered THAT question."
seraph1982Jul 14, 2010
Sure, but what evolved into that which layed eggs existed for millions of years before the eggs they layed. Think about it: egg laying is the bi-product of sexual reproduction. Therefore, sexual reproduction came before the egg, which means that which spawns the egg came way before sexual reproduction.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sh0xJul 14, 2010
Having solved that mystery, Science's next attempts will be to study the acoustics of falling trees and to obtain an audio recording of the elusive sound of one hand clapping.
grumpymonkJul 14, 2010
I know a guy who can clap with one hand. Sounds a lot like a regular clap.
sageerrantJul 15, 2010
I can clap with one hand. Either, actually.
It does sound much like a regular clap. A little snappier, maybe. Less mass, less acoustic space, but a very good striking surface.
designerutahJul 14, 2010
Physics has already answered this question. The sound comes from the change in energy at the point of collision. Potential energy becomes kinetic energy, and motion is generated in the various materials involved. Sound waves are nothing more than kinetic energy propagating through a medium at such a level as to be able to be heard.
You don't think if a tree falls and no one is around, there is no collision, right? The ground suffers an impact. And that generates waves. Some of those waves oscillate in a range which would be "sound." Hence there's always sound, just might not be anyone to appreciate it.
mcnerdJul 14, 2010
Well, you could point out that the qualitative human EXPERIENCE of sound is very different from the physical sound waves themselves. In fact, due to all the high-level signal processing that occurs at the subconscious level, we can be sure that the neurological patterns created by a sound do not much resemble the sound itself.
So it's a question of how you define "sound," and I'll acknowledge that the "tree falling in the woods" question hints at some interesting issues beyond the mere physics. I still think that even in this view the question has been fully answered by science, but it's not quite as trivial as the "chicken and the egg" question.
noaliasJul 15, 2010
If nothing is there to experience the tree, the ground, and the collision that propagates the changes in pressure we know as sound, then it's all in superposition of probability. The tree neither falls to make the sound nor does it not fall to not make the sound. Neither happen until someone or something experiences a possible outcome.
danj484Jul 14, 2010
If you monitor the sound of the tree falling, the condition of "no one's there to hear it" no longer applies.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
oh god. im crying reading these comments on digg.
please dont try philosophy again digg. it's like watching a 3 legged dog trying to s**t on an iced over lake (with one of the BACK legs missing - this is key).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
protodonJul 14, 2010
Fish lay eggs, we all came from fish. Scientists are wrong.
charlesdkraussJul 14, 2010
That's correct. Maybe the question should have been worded: Which came first, the chicken, or the chicken egg?
Eggs ultimately came first, but a chicken came before a chicken egg.
Would you agree?
mcnerdJul 14, 2010
It's just a meaningless question because species distinctions aren't clear-cut.
If I had a time machine to go back and watch the evolution of chickens then I could arbitrarily say "According to me, right about now is when the chicken species began. I have gone around and tagged a bunch of birds, and all those birds and their descendants are chickens, and no others." (There might be some reasoning to this, like maybe a geographical change suddenly separated that group from another group and they never interbred again, but generally not. Anyway, there is no better way to go about things: you either define the species branching point this way or you don't define it at all.)
And then I have to pick between two different ways to define "chicken egg." It's either an egg that PRODUCES a chicken (in which case the first chicken eggs were the ones these animals were born from) or an egg produced BY a chicken (in which case the first chicken eggs are the ones these animals will lay).
As you can see, this would be a stupid and pointless exercise.
charlesdkraussJul 14, 2010
I think that's a good summary for the question and the problem with answering it. It doesn't really need to be answered anyway.
dontthinksoJul 15, 2010
Depends on how you define "chicken egg".
If a "chicken egg" is an egg laid by a chicken, then yes, the chicken came first. However, that's probably not a very good definition; if a chicken laid an egg that hatched a dinosaur, we'd probably call it a dinosaur egg.
A better definition would be, "an egg that hatches into a chicken." In which case, the chicken egg must have come first.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Technically we share a common ancestor with fish; while that ancestor looked far more like fish than like us, it wouldn't have been a fish per se.
charlesdkraussJul 14, 2010
I agree with that too, something layed an egg long before a chicken did.
I'm just thinking maybe the question should be worded: Which came first, the chicken, or the chicken egg?
Because we already know the "egg" came before a chicken.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
The chicken and the chicken egg would have evolved together, since the chicken's dinosaur ancestors were also egg-layers. A more interesting question is how eggs evolved in the first place, but this study didn't touch on that.
simplyfungusJul 14, 2010
I thought we were all the retarded offspring of five monkeys having buttsex with a fishfrog?
sanktcolonistJul 14, 2010
That's what I've been trying to tell people from the beginning. It's common f**king sense.
karddeJul 14, 2010
Whichever came first, they're both f**king delicious.
norman619Jul 14, 2010
Well, it's obvious to me that some animal had to lay the first egg so yeah. Eggs are the byproduct of a living thing.
jantikJul 14, 2010
This is an old yolk.
russkallJul 14, 2010
Another great piece of research that has no doubt eaten up the UK taxpayers money!! Would rather the time, brainpower and money went into one of the millions of other areas of reasearch that are alot more important and benificial to mankind, but hey, at least we now know that the chicken comes first!!
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
danj484Jul 14, 2010
Protip: it's possible in science to find stuff out that's interesting while you're looking for something.
bort27Jul 14, 2010
Technically, the rooster came first.
tacodog76Jul 15, 2010
I get it.
boozedrinkerJul 14, 2010
god creates dinosaurs. god destroys dinosaurs <by evolving them into chickens>. god creates man. man destroys god. man eats chickens.
mariwanabe8Jul 14, 2010
"God". Buried.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Burried
oltpJul 14, 2010
The study was actually called "Structural Control of Crystal Nuclei by an Eggshell Protein" and said nothing about chickens existing before eggs in general. I'm sorry I don't have a link to the study but I'm really sick of the mainstream media dumbing down these kinds of things to make it exciting for idiots.
grumpymonkJul 14, 2010
This article brought out all the know-it-alls. Unless you have a time machine, you don't know s**t.
bezzJul 14, 2010
Good thing I do have a time machine then.
piieerrrreeJul 14, 2010
Buried for the Metro
syuriJul 14, 2010
Great... instead of finding cures for cancer and HIV we're discovering whether the chicken or the egg came first...
onioncommandoJul 14, 2010
Weren't you around? We cured HIV a few days ago.
syuriJul 14, 2010
Ah yeah, here on digg diseases get cured multiple times a year ^^
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Because paleontologists are able to cure diseases?
tnpdynomiteJul 14, 2010
I've always thought that the chicken came first, because without it how would the egg keep warm enough to hatch?
ryan850Jul 14, 2010
Scientists prove? what's to prove? the ancestors of the first chicken were a few mutations away from technically being chickens, until finally a chicken was born of an egg that you could classify as a new species. it's a very fuzzy line, but it's not a puzzle that's been baffling scientists in the modern age. Darwin and like minded scientists in the mid-1800s had this figured out. The only people perplexed by the question don't understand evolution.
thedudediggsJul 14, 2010
I love the Onion
meedJul 14, 2010
If you take the question literately where it is chickens vs "the egg" , the egg wins. Obviously egg laying animals have existed on this earth well before chickens show up in the fossil record.
BUT, it you ask it as which came first the egg laying animal or the eggs they lay, I would say that animals evolved to lay eggs and the first identifiable chicken must of been hatched from a egg produced by the animal the chicken evolved from. So you could say that the egg wins again.
BUT BUT, Using the logic that "the chicken" is a place holder for the egg layer if and you are really ask which was first the egg or a the egg layer. I would have to say that the egg layer would had to evolve the ability to produce eggs. And the chicken would have to win,
BUT again if don't believe in the proven theory of evolution and still cling on to creationist theories. These arguments are null, your debate is about which one was created first by a god. Your f**king wasting the earth's oxygen.
clippclopJul 14, 2010
But what if the protein was found n an external source that produced the first egg? All they've proven is that the eggs need the protein for crystallization.
So now we're back to the original question.
massiveclawjobJul 14, 2010
wouldnt an ancestor of the chicken lay the chickens egg? its evolution
kaleyamaJul 14, 2010
Now to find out why the f**k it crossed the road!
kajaragoJul 14, 2010
To get to the other vagina.
rusty11Jul 14, 2010
An egg is a chicken's period
OM NOM NOM
iveplayedjesusJul 14, 2010
wtf?
BillyWDDCJul 15, 2010
HOHOHOHO you say funny thing!
mike23wJul 14, 2010
how do you know the egg needed the protein at the very beginning?
maybe the egg didn't initially need the protein?
mmmpoweradeJul 14, 2010
Everytime I cook eggs I just think, "Im frying a would be chicken to hell".
methusalahJul 14, 2010
Profound...
sageerrantJul 15, 2010
You aren't, unless you enjoy fertilized eggs.
Dawgz83948Jul 14, 2010
Of course the chicken came first. What a stupid question in the first place. Evolution is such a farce in the first place. Nex thing the evolutionists will tell you is that a Toyota Evolved because someone put all the parts of a car into a giant vat of goo and stirred, after 30,000,000 years a Toyota came out all complete and done..... YAY~~~~!!!! Stupidity at it's finest.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
"Stupidity at it's finest."
Yes, your comment was.
holychickenJul 14, 2010
/s?
Please tell me /s
bobartigJul 14, 2010
Evolution is demonstrable fact. Creation is neither logical nor explainable in any way, it is in FACT the complete abdication of logical thought. Mythology is a crutch of ancient man to explain the unknowable, which is why it steers entirely clear of any form of logic.
How can you even make a statement about evolution when you clearly don't understand it? Nothing is "complete" or "done" in evolution, merely successful or unsuccessful at survival.
Dawgz83948Jul 14, 2010
Sounds like you guys suffer from cooterache since none of your arguements hold any water. Evolution is a demonstratable fact huh, ok prove it. Hmm I wonder why it's still a theory then? Maybe because it can't be proven. The fact that the 3 of you are still around proves that survival of the fitest is wrong, it's apparently the survival of the stupidest. Go back to your ancestors that thought the earth was flat....... they thought they were so smart too.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Gravity is still a theory, why don't you go float off the planet. You don't know what the word theory means in the scientific sense.
dylbrwn2Jul 14, 2010
God, I can't tell if Dawgz is kidding or not since I know there are people that actually believe what he's saying. I'm just going to refute him anyway in case someone else reading may have these same questions.
-Evolution is a fact because we can and have observed it
-Evolution by natural selection is the theory that explains the fact of evolution
-A "theory" is the highest form of science. The reason it's "still a theory" is b/c there is nothing passed a theory.
-"Maybe b/c it can't be proven" Science isn't in the proving things business.
-What you said about survival of the fittest doesn't make any sense (probably trolling)
-Back when people thought the Earth was flat scientists knew it was round.
hblaskJul 14, 2010
It's a silly question to begin with.... there were some birds, that became increasingly chicken-like over many many generations. Millions (?) of years later, humans declared that a chicken. So which one was the first chicken? Who knows, it just sort of got there over time.
BillyWDDCJul 15, 2010
You mean... Ultra mega chicken?? SHHHH! Only legend.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Why is this even a question. If you believe in evolution then the chicken obviously came first. It's like asking if a mule or mule fetus came first. If you believe in God, then the chicken came first. Since there is no such thing as God, obviously the chicken came first.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spongya77Jul 14, 2010
1. no one believes evolution. At least not the informed people. They accept it based on evidence.
2. the EGG came first. There were many egg-laying ancestors before the chicken came into being. And we're talking about 600million years of ancestors.
3. God and science are not mutually exclusive. They have nothing to do with each other.
caselJul 15, 2010
1. Many people actually believe in evolution. Most don't take the time to actually look at the evidence. They just believe what they're taught.
2. So, at what point of evolution was it officially a chicken? 100 million years ago or 3,000? Is what we consider a chicken today the same chicken in 5,000BC?
3. God and science have everything to do with each other for many people. They see science as a study of how God created and evolved the universe into what it is today. They look at the facts of science and see the beauty of creation in it.