View previous topic | View next topic

What Came first the chicken or the egg??

Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2


what came first the chicken or the egg?
chicken
28%
 28%  [ 2 ]
egg
71%
 71%  [ 5 ]
Total Votes : 7

HakunaMatata
409193.  Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:37 am Reply with quote

Quote:
The chicken would have come from the egg so i would hazard that the egg came first.


Then where did the egg come from?

 
Bondee
409476.  Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:35 am Reply with quote

HakunaMatata wrote:
Then where did the egg come from?


It was laid from the dinosaur that the chicken evolved from.

 
HakunaMatata
409487.  Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:50 am Reply with quote

Bondee wrote:
HakunaMatata wrote:
Then where did the egg come from?


It was laid from the dinosaur that the chicken evolved from.


This is a totally random point but do you think it is possible that the dinosaur never actually existed and that the universe was created with the fossils and bones already implanted into the rock?

 
CB27
409512.  Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:28 pm Reply with quote

You see, that's where god went wrong. Implants should be made from silicon and be a bit more smooth.

I don't fancy peeking under his nipple tassles...

 
AndyMcH
409636.  Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:44 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Then where did the egg come from?


It would have been laid by the "not-quite-chicken" mother (The embryo would have become a chicken through a mutation...)

 
PDR
409655.  Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:54 pm Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
Thirdly, evolution would mean that the egg came first because evolution takes place from mutations in the genes which occur during the development of the embryo.


Some do, certainly. But others are the result of "transcription errors" which occurred during the growth and storage of the original egg. The eggs are formed during the growth of the parent embryo and are present in her body from before birth until use, so the genetic variation could have occured at any time in the life of the parent. Similarly there can be variation from the parent sperm, and those are manufactured a few days before use - but definitely in the parent.

PDR

 
PDR
409657.  Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:57 pm Reply with quote

96aelw wrote:
We've done this before, I'm sure. It's really not a conundrum at all once you'e defined your terms, though. It all depends what you mean by egg [/Professor Joad].

If 'egg' just means, well, egg, then obviously it came first; dinosaurs laid them.

'Egg' must, then, mean 'chicken egg'. But that admits two meanings. Either it is an egg laid by a chicken, in which case the chicken, by definition, came first, or it means an egg containing a chicken, in which case the egg, by definition, came first. Either way, once you have decidede on your definition, you have the answer without needing to think about it at all. Ta da.


That assumes that the "chicken" is the end product whilst the egg is just a means of getting one.

What if the egg was the actual species, and the *chickens* were just the manufacturing mechanism - ie what if a chicken was merely the egg's way of reproducing to procreate the egg population?

PDR

 
bobwilson
409669.  Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:11 pm Reply with quote

That sounds very like Dawkins's idea that organisms are the methods that genes use to propagate themselves PDR.

 
PDR
409704.  Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:23 pm Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
That sounds very like Dawkins's idea that organisms are the methods that genes use to propagate themselves PDR.


Hardly surprising - he steals all my best stuff...

PDR

 
bobwilson
409715.  Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:44 pm Reply with quote

Doesn't surprise me PDR - I've seen some of your other posts and am not ashamed to admit I'd nick them too.

 
samivel
409755.  Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:57 pm Reply with quote

HakunaMatata wrote:
This is a totally random point but do you think it is possible that the dinosaur never actually existed and that the universe was created with the fossils and bones already implanted into the rock?


No.

 
AndyMcH
409759.  Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:01 pm Reply with quote

Well it would be a hell of a coincidence..
but no.

 
bobwilson
409762.  Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:18 pm Reply with quote

samivel wrote:
HakunaMatata wrote:
This is a totally random point but do you think it is possible that the dinosaur never actually existed and that the universe was created with the fossils and bones already implanted into the rock?


No.


Of course He could (let's capitalise His name to show proper respect).

And it would also not have been a problem for Him to create the image of an exploding star in our telescopes. Using the known speed of light this image would be of a star which appears to have exploded several million years ago - long before the creation. But small change for an omnipotent being. Hey - why not - let's create the image of an exploded star which never actually existed - that'll confuse the buggers.

Whatever else might be said about Him, the Creationist God certainly has a sense of humour - so He probably watches QI.

 
PDR
409799.  Fri Sep 19, 2008 2:48 am Reply with quote

HakunaMatata wrote:
This is a totally random point but do you think it is possible that the dinosaur never actually existed and that the universe was created with the fossils and bones already implanted into the rock?


Well it is quite conceivable, but if you work through the logical progression you find it requires the existance of a God who is not merely omniscient and omnipotent, but also possessed of a wicked sense of humour. That fails the Occum test...

PDR

 
HakunaMatata
409858.  Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:37 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
Well it is quite conceivable, but if you work through the logical progression you find it requires the existance of a God who is not merely omniscient and omnipotent, but also possessed of a wicked sense of humour. That fails the Occum test...

PDR


Of course He has a sense of humour, look at the platypus!

 

Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group