|
Post by Twice-Shy on Oct 23, 2005 17:13:29 GMT -5
The chicken or the egg?
|
|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on Oct 23, 2005 17:19:41 GMT -5
the chicken im 100% sure
I think the real question is where did either of them come from.
|
|
ellis
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by ellis on Oct 23, 2005 18:07:03 GMT -5
They say the chicken is descended from some dinosaur, like many of the bird species are. So theoretically there were some intermeditae animals that became more and more chicken like and then one day, an egg hatched and out came the chicken!
So I will respectfully say that I think the egg came first. It was an egg layed by something that was not quite a chicken, but that contained a chicken within its shell.
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Oct 23, 2005 21:51:10 GMT -5
The chicken or the egg? I'm not sure, but i think both taste delicious!
|
|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on Oct 23, 2005 22:41:15 GMT -5
so where did the dinosaur come from
|
|
ellis
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by ellis on Oct 23, 2005 23:57:32 GMT -5
I think that most everyone knows that dinosaurs came from the honorable line of the tortise, or turtle as some would call them. The tortise one day came upon a clearing and released unto it the seeds of dinosaur life, from the tip of his nose. He then drew himself up into his shell to sleep for one thousand years and await the dawning of the new world his dinosaur children would build.
Needless to say he met only with dissapointment. Somebody will no doubt ask me, from whence the tortise? To which I say, the question is meaningless - its turtles all the way back!
|
|
|
Post by aforgottenmemory on Oct 24, 2005 8:06:05 GMT -5
In nature, living things evolve through changes in their DNA. In an animal like a chicken, DNA from a male sperm cell and a female ovum meet and combine to form a zygote -- the first cell of a new baby chicken. This first cell divides innumerable times to form all of the cells of the complete animal. In any animal, every cell contains exactly the same DNA, and that DNA comes from the zygote. Chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken. Prior to that first true chicken zygote, there were only non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the chicken's egg. So, the egg must have come first. And i didn't just copy and paste the above from some science site, at all...
|
|
|
Post by Samantha on Oct 24, 2005 13:21:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aforgottenmemory on Oct 24, 2005 16:47:06 GMT -5
You know i thought it, but the picture summed it up much better lol
|
|
Derrick
Full Member
Lost Soul
Posts: 241
|
Post by Derrick on Oct 24, 2005 19:14:19 GMT -5
I would have to say neither came first.
|
|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on Oct 24, 2005 21:39:25 GMT -5
if evolution occured over a long period of time wouldnt the mutations be a hinderance to the organism
say a fish develops lungs what happens then? it drowns .
evolution can not happen with peicemeal changes to organisms because of irreducible complexity. that is that if a fish were to become a land animal it would have to go through skeletal, circulatory system and other changes simultaneously to survive.
also darwin and others did breeding experiments and found a limit to the amount of change a orgamism (pigeons) could make. Never has anyone created a change in one species to another. there are adaptations (micro evolution) or changes within species.
Microevolution does occur and some of the evidence for it has been used in argument or to form a misconception that Macro occurs.
Now where did the turtles, dinosuars, cheicken come from
|
|
|
Post by chatnoir on Oct 25, 2005 2:14:09 GMT -5
no one has ever caused a change in one species to another because it's incredibly difficult to see evolution take place (not to mention it would kill the animal, evolution isn't meant to be an overnight process). hence why it's a theory and not a law. it hasn't yet been "proven" because it takes so long to observe (i.e. it takes longer than a human can live to observe it).
mutations also don't occur over a long period of time (unlike evolution). mutations are sudden, small changes in an organism. any negative mutations are automatically wiped out from the population, or in other words the organism that has that mutation dies. most mutations aren't seen and are neither beneficial or harmful. it's rare that an organism has a dramatic mutation, though it does seem to happen. thus, fish don't grow lungs because it would be considered a negative mutation. any fish with this trait dies, and the remaining fish are left to reproduce. some mutations are both good and bad. the sickle shaped blood cells found in some people are considered a mutation and can also lead to health related problems, but at the same time those with sickle cell have a lot lower risk of becoming sick with malaria. it could explain why some mutations that seem to be negative sometimes stick around. they might have a benefit that we don't know about.
mutations refer to cell based (DNA/ RNA) changes within an organism. mutations aren't found in the parental genes either. however, with mutations the phenotype (in the sense of overall structure) of the organism usually isn't changed (it's incredibly rare if it is, like with the blue lobster). so, it's not like humans will suddenly sprout an arm and every human after it will also have an extra arm somewhere.
so my argument would be the egg came first (shrugs) though my science could be completely wrong (and if it is i'm going to feel really stupid as i'm going out on a limb here heh *blushes*) but that's my understanding of it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Samantha on Oct 25, 2005 5:06:32 GMT -5
though my science could be completely wrong (and if it is i'm going to feel really stupid as i'm going out on a limb here heh *blushes*) Hehe, that's the sort of pun that I would be proud of ;D I would agree with the egg coming first. I guess it 'boils' down to if you are an evolutionist then it's the egg. If you're a creationist then it's the chicken.
|
|
|
Post by Samantha on Oct 25, 2005 6:07:24 GMT -5
if evolution occured over a long period of time wouldnt the mutations be a hinderance to the organism Not if the mutations were beneficial like being stronger, faster, smarter, more fertile, having access to more food sources etc or merely benign. say a fish develops lungs what happens then? it drowns . Shush don't tell the dolphins or whales that or they might be in trouble. evolution can not happen with peicemeal changes to organisms because of irreducible complexity. that is that if a fish were to become a land animal it would have to go through skeletal, circulatory system and other changes simultaneously to survive. Don't tell the gill using tadpoles or they might never grow into lung using frogs!! Or for some fish those "skeletal, circulatory system and other changes" could happen before the lungs. If they ever developed lungs at all, like some salamandersTaken from the above website: "Lungless salamanders: Within this family there are 28 genera and 266 species worldwide. Plethodontids are the most diverse and species-rich group of salamanders. They are generally small and relatively slender with prominent costal grooves and upward protruding eyes. All species lungless and they also have a small distinct groove which runs from the nostril to the upper lip on each side. This nasolabial groove aids in chemoreception. They are the only salamander that have extensively radiated in the tropics. Plethodontids occupy subterranean, aquatic, terrestrial and arboreal habitats. They inhabit moist environments, streams, spring and river margins and damp woodlands. The origin of lunglessness is attributed to adaptation for a mountain stream habitat. Because they are lungless, they depend on moist skin and the roof of their mouth for respiration. A moist surface is essential for this exchange so plethodontids are highly intolerant of dryness and excess heat. They die quickly if exposed to a drying environment." also darwin and others did breeding experiments and found a limit to the amount of change a orgamism (pigeons) could make. Never has anyone created a change in one species to another. there are adaptations (micro evolution) or changes within species. As chatnoir said you can't replicate millions of years within one liftime of experiments. Of course it may suggest a limit to the amount of change an organism can go through. Or it may suggest a limit to how much a species can change before the experimenters die or run out of money. I find it odd that there would be a limit to how much a species can change. Daddy and Mummy give birth to Junior who has slightly different features but when Junior gets it on with 'the hypothetical organism next door' they would give birth to an exact copy of themselves? The whole point about evolution is that it takes place over a long period of time with changes occuring within each generation. In the same way if your save a penny every day won't make you rich but eventually your great, great, great grandchildren end up very wealthy. Plus new species have been created. They are called hybridsNow where did the turtles, dinosuars, cheicken come from Where did God(s) come from? Why does anything, natural or supernatural exist? Do we even have the intellectual capacity to understand such a question, in the same way mice can't comprehend algebra? Why is evolution and the existence of a God mutually exclusive? Maybe God(s) created evolution? What's in my pocket?
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Oct 25, 2005 10:51:03 GMT -5
Evolution is a good theory, no doubt. So is Intelligent Design and other deist theories. Also a lot to be said for Creationism, for Creationism explains the drive for Evolution, as how and why did Evolution begin in the first place? But one thing that strikes me about these theories is how similar they are, not how different they are. May i remind you that Evolution was much debated at the times it was first published, and only until the 1950's did it take hold in scientific practice as being the accepted theory in the realm of science. Science itself evolved as a separation process, which took millenia to occur, while science is still evolving and changing. It is not done yet, not by a long shot. Much is still unproven by science, and much more yet to be tackled. New theories take time and debate to be accepted by a majority of people, and for a new consensus to be made. So, the similarities. I'm not such a great scientist really, but i am somewhat of a historian of science. New ideas are batted around for centuries in some instances before they are accepted or discarded. And as often happens, old ideas are ressurected and given new weight by new research and evidence. Creationism and Evolution, as i've said before here on this board, are two excellent theories that have withstood the test of time. Evolution reaches back to the days of Aristotle, not merely to Darwin. And Creationism has been around also since the time of Aristotle, founded by his mentor Plato. The universe has a driving force to it. Whatever this may be, it is simply what the Greeks called Deos, meaning simply, a universal God. This God may not be a saving God, and may not be a scientific God. But it is widely accepted that the universe operates by principles and laws explicable by mathematics, not merely science. Thus, 'God' could be nothing more than a driving force of mathematics. It could also be nothing more than a Hellenistic Christian Saving God, written in the New Testament. Either way, we cannot be sure. Not on this plain of existance, at least. Whether this universe is eternal or not, we'll also never know in our lifetimes, never mind all the scientists' 'proevn' theories. We are all fallible, and create ideas which are fallible. Thus, we cannot adequately explain the universe and that by which it operates. Evolution and Creationism are mutually exclusive; they disprove each other because they operate on different criteria by which to judge ideas. This does not mean they are both false, not at all. Much can be said for evolution taking hold on earth and driving change. Much can be said for the idea that the universe was created, and subject to set laws and principles. In short, i think the truth of the matter lies somewhere in the middle, with the combination of Creationism and Evolution, not by accepting one over the other.
|
|