Jump to content


Photo

The Chicken And Egg Problem


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
12 replies to this topic

#1 Nitai

Nitai

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Amsterdam

Posted 11 May 2005 - 01:50 AM

Hello,

As you can see from the title of the topic this is actually a very seriouas problem not only considering the chicken's origin but of insects, molluscs, arthropods etc. as well.

So, any suggestions what was first?

PS: Please be serious.
Nitai

#2 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 11 May 2005 - 03:19 AM

Hello,

As you can see from the title of the topic this is actually a very seriouas problem not only considering the chicken's origin but of insects, molluscs, arthropods etc. as well.

So, any suggestions what was first?

PS: Please be serious.
Nitai

View Post



With regards to the chicken, it was the egg that came first. Where did the egg come from? A red jungle fowl is the answer

Posted Image

Read all about them here.

This applies to all creatures, the thing that birthed them was very much like they were. We keep reversing this back in time and eventually we see that everything seems to have a common ancestor, with one exception, the first. Now the first organism probably was born of some kind of simple replicater, which was (I imagine) born of a simple array of protiens. At this point though we can't really be precise since there is no solid evidence for it. There are some extraordinary ideas though. There is a small discussion on the problems associated with this aspect of science here.

#3 Guest_Paul C. Anagnostopoulos_*

Guest_Paul C. Anagnostopoulos_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 May 2005 - 05:19 AM

Nitai, it sounds like you are thinking of a species as popping into existence all of a sudden in one generation. Then the chicken and egg problem might be an issue. But, of course, that is not how it happens.

~~ Paul

#4 Nitai

Nitai

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Amsterdam

Posted 11 May 2005 - 07:50 AM

Nitai, it sounds like you are thinking of a species as popping into existence all of a sudden in one generation. Then the chicken and egg problem might be an issue. But, of course, that is not how it happens.

~~ Paul

View Post


My point is that the chicken / egg problem is not only an analogy but the problem for all the specieas multiplying with eggs.
First there was (somehow or other) a single celled guy which became Amoeba.
Righ? But look at this scheme of chromosomes.

Fern 480 White Ash 138 Carp 100
Goldfish 94 Sweet Potato 90 Turkey 82
Chicken 78 Dog 78 Duck 78
Horse 64 Cow 60 Silkworm 56
Cotton 52 Amoeba 50 Chimp 48
Tobacco 48 Human 46

So, this scheme shows the number of chromosomes in these species. Its unbelievable that from single celled living entity an Amoeba developed with 50 chromosomes. More then in human - only 46.

Jokingly, if I accept evolution that means humans will develop into Amoebas, sweet potatoes, a goldfish and ultimately the fern with 480 chromosomes?

And --- it seems before chickens and eggs there was a man.

Nitai

#5 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 11 May 2005 - 07:58 AM

My point is that the chicken / egg problem is not only an analogy but the problem for all the specieas multiplying with eggs.
First there was (somehow or other) a single celled guy which became Amoeba.
Righ? But look at this scheme of chromosomes.

Fern 480 White Ash 138 Carp 100
Goldfish 94 Sweet Potato 90 Turkey 82
Chicken 78 Dog 78 Duck 78
Horse 64 Cow 60 Silkworm 56
Cotton 52 Amoeba 50 Chimp 48
Tobacco 48 Human 46

So, this scheme shows the number of chromosomes in these species. Its unbelievable that from single celled living entity an Amoeba developed with 50 chromosomes. More then in human - only 46.

Jokingly, if I accept evolution that means humans will develop into Amoebas, sweet potatoes, a goldfish and ultimately the fern with 480 chromosomes?

And --- it seems before chickens and eggs there was a man.

Nitai

View Post


First you would have to demonstrate that evolution implies progression towards a greater number of chromosomes. It doesn't. You would have to demonstrate that the first single celled organism to have developed was an amoeba with 50 chromosomes, it wasn't.

Finally, although you were referring to it jokingly, you will have to stop reading h*vind's material if you want to progress in knowledge...it eats your brain away :D

#6 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 11 May 2005 - 09:30 AM

Jokingly, if I accept evolution that means humans will develop into Amoebas, sweet potatoes, a goldfish and ultimately the fern with 480 chromosomes?

View Post


We didn't develop from any of those species that you listed. We share a common ancestor with all of those species. Evolution is not a ladder, it is a branching tree with the living species we see today the tips of those branches.

#7 Nitai

Nitai

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Amsterdam

Posted 11 May 2005 - 10:36 AM

Let's a bit think.

If we say that the first 'chicken' would have had to hatch from some 'proto-chicken' egg, and therefore the egg would have come first", tha means we would have to accept the 'hopeful monster' theory? Chicken coming out from the crocodile egg? Or vice versa?

But anyway, I cannot demonstrate that evolution implies progression towards a greater number of chromosomes, however in any text book on evolution you will find the information that humans are superior because they have more chromosomes, or let's put it differently because they have more genes.

The supprising discovery I found is that human genome is comparatively small, only about 25,000 genes, compared to a rice kernel with 60,000 genes. Or look this site http://www.genomenew...g_genomes.shtml

This was written by serious scientists.

But OK. ALthough the evolutionary connection is not clear, let's say that the complexity of an organism doesn't depend on the number of chromosomes. At least that's obvious. Still with this, the question is not solved. And that is, how is it that so many chromosomes are there in the lower animals that are in the beginning scale of evoluton; and for what they need so much chromosomes; etc.

Finally back to the original point. If you know 100% the exact develpment of x-entity into chicken please supply here all the details of genetic transformations and demonstrate that in the laboratory. I am sure you will get a Nobel prize. But anyway, I am not interested only in dry unproved theories. I want practical proof.

Now, let me a bit speculate. If I assume that the developing x-entity (pre-chicken) was gradually evolving, the egg should have also developed gradually. But than, the problems would be:
1) laying the egg - if the shell is not strong it would be immediatelly smashed and become the feast for other animals. (Maybe some ape aeting the first egg)

2) Moreover, even if somehow the egg would not become smashed the x-entity would not lay on it to not brake the egg so the chicken or x-entity would never hatch.

So, again problems.
I look forward for your reply.
Nitai

#8 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 11 May 2005 - 11:39 AM

Let's a bit think.

If we say that the first 'chicken' would have had to hatch from some 'proto-chicken' egg, and therefore the egg would have come first", tha means we would have to accept the 'hopeful monster' theory? Chicken coming out from the crocodile egg? Or vice versa?


Why would you propose a crocodile egg? Chickens are birds, therefore the ancestor to chickens (Gallus gallus to be specific) would have been a bird. Chickens were originally bred from a wild stock of "proto-chickens" where their breeding was controlled by man. They were not allowed to interbreed with wild populations so they took on different characteristics over time.

But anyway, I cannot demonstrate that evolution implies progression towards a greater number of chromosomes, however in any text book on evolution you will find the information that humans are superior because they have more chromosomes, or let's put it differently because they have more genes.


How are we "superior"? We can't breed a fast as bacteria. We can't run as fast as a cheetah. We can't swim as fast as a dolphin. We can't climb trees as well as a squirrel. The only thing superior about humans is our intelligence and our ability to mold our environment to our needs. In other areas we are actually inferior.

Finally back to the original point. If you know 100% the exact develpment of x-entity into chicken please supply here all the details of genetic transformations and demonstrate that in the laboratory. I am sure you will get a Nobel prize. But anyway, I am not interested only in dry unproved theories. I want practical proof.


There is no such thing as proof in science. Proof is for math and alcohol. Science uses tentative theories based on evidence. These theories can be changed by new evidence. No one is certain of the exact development of chickens, either morphologically or genetically. What can be shown is a large amount of evidence that chickens share common ancestory with other birds through similarities in morphology and genetic similarities.

In fact, scientists are able to establish common ancestory between the chicken and the silver pheasant (Lophura nycthemera), Lady Amherst's pheasant (Chrysolophus amherstiae), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), Western capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus), Chinese bamboo-partridge (Bambusicola thoracica) and common peafowl (Pavo cristatus) of the Phasianidae, and the plain chachalaca (Ortalis vetula) of the Cracidae. From this abstract (done by serious scientists):

Cytogenet Genome Res. 2004;106(1):111-9.
 
Karyotypic evolution in the Galliformes: an examination of the process of karyotypic evolution by comparison of the molecular cytogenetic findings with the molecular phylogeny.

Shibusawa M, Nishibori M, Nishida-Umehara C, Tsudzuki M, Masabanda J, Griffin DK, Matsuda Y.

Laboratory of Cytogenetics, Division of Bioscience, Graduate School of Environmental Earth Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.

To define the process of karyotypic evolution in the Galliformes on a molecular basis, we conducted genome-wide comparative chromosome painting for eight species, i.e. silver pheasant (Lophura nycthemera), Lady Amherst's pheasant (Chrysolophus amherstiae), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), Western capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus), Chinese bamboo-partridge (Bambusicola thoracica) and common peafowl (Pavo cristatus) of the Phasianidae, and plain chachalaca (Ortalis vetula) of the Cracidae, with chicken DNA probes of chromosomes 1-9 and Z. Including our previous data from five other species, chicken (Gallus gallus), Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) and blue-breasted quail (Coturnix chinensis) of the Phasianidae, guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) of the Numididae and California quail (Callipepla californica) of the Odontophoridae, we represented the evolutionary changes of karyotypes in the 13 species of the Galliformes. In addition, we compared the cytogenetic data with the molecular phylogeny of the 13 species constructed with the nucleotide sequences of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene, and discussed the process of karyotypic evolution in the Galliformes. Comparative chromosome painting confirmed the previous data on chromosome rearrangements obtained by G-banding analysis, and identified several novel chromosome rearrangements. The process of the evolutionary changes of macrochromosomes in the 13 species was in good accordance with the molecular phylogeny, and the ancestral karyotype of the Galliformes is represented. Copyright 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel


Now, let me a bit speculate. If I assume that the developing x-entity (pre-chicken) was gradually evolving, the egg should have also developed gradually. But than, the problems would be:
1) laying the egg - if the shell is not strong it would be immediatelly smashed and become the feast for other animals. (Maybe some ape aeting the first egg)

2) Moreover, even if somehow the egg would not become smashed the x-entity would not lay on it to not brake the egg so the chicken or x-entity would never hatch.


Why is this a problem if the ancestor of chickens already had eggs with a strong enough shell?

#9 Nitai

Nitai

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Amsterdam

Posted 11 May 2005 - 12:30 PM

Hello,

You wrote: There is no such thing as proof in science. Proof is for math and alcohol...No one is certain of the exact development of chickens, either morphologically or genetically...

Still you are coming to conclusion saying:
What can be shown is a large amount of evidence that chickens share common ancestory with other birds through similarities in morphology and genetic similarities.

Sorry but these are paradoxical statements.

Moreover, it seems that you try to make some connection between Chinese, Californian, Japanese, African, European Galliformes but you cannot even proof that they have had any connection, relationship or did they branched off from one another. All in all, it seems that you accept the wishfull speculative conclusions to explain something you cannot proof. This is the best science fiction I heard.

In the end you remarked: Why is this a problem if the ancestor of chickens already had eggs with a strong enough shell?
Well, just as the ancestor chicken so the shell of the egg had to also develop step by step. Thus, either you accept the half evolution or the complete evolution (speculetion).

Or, (here is a joke) you have to accept that God gave to a chicken (or to an ancestor chicken) the first hard shelled christmas egg.
NOTE: I am not a christan.

Nitai

#10 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 11 May 2005 - 12:56 PM

Hello,

You wrote: There is no such thing as proof in science. Proof is for math and alcohol...No one is certain of the exact development of chickens, either morphologically or genetically...

Still you are coming to conclusion saying:
What can be shown is a large amount of evidence that chickens share common ancestory with other birds through similarities in morphology and genetic similarities.

Sorry but these are paradoxical statements.


No, they are not. Morphology and genetic material is passed down from generation to generation. This is seen today. DNA sequences of living species allow us to construct trees of similarities. The more similar the DNA the more recent the common ancestor between the two species. There are also fingerprints within the DNA, such as the ERV's used to establish human and chimp common ancestory, that could only come about through common ancestory. However, the methodologies used to establish common ancestory does not always tell us the exact order of mutations or exact genes that cause differences in morphology. So while the exact order of mutation and selection is unknown or extremely shaky, common ancestory is much easier and more concrete. As an analogy, paternity tests can establish who a child belongs to but it is unable to distinguish what genes make the child look slightly different than either parent.

Moreover, it seems that you try to make some connection between Chinese, Californian, Japanese, African, European Galliformes but you cannot even proof that they have had any connection, relationship or did they branched off from one another. All in all, it seems that you accept the wishfull speculative conclusions to explain something you cannot proof. This is the best science fiction I heard.


No, they all fall into a parsimonious nested hiearchy, the same arrangement predicted by the theory of evolution.

In the end you remarked: Why is this a problem if the ancestor of chickens already had eggs with a strong enough shell?
Well, just as the ancestor chicken so the shell of the egg had to also develop step by step. Thus, either you accept the half evolution or the complete evolution (speculetion).


Again, why was the egg of the ancestor chicken inadequate? Do you have evidence that the ancestor to the galliformes had an inadequate egg for the divergence of the group into their present species?

#11 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 May 2005 - 01:47 PM

Hello,

As you can see from the title of the topic this is actually a very seriouas problem not only considering the chicken's origin but of insects, molluscs, arthropods etc. as well.

So, any suggestions what was first?

PS: Please be serious.
Nitai

View Post


I’m for the egg for S@xual reproduction, and the ‘chicken’ for asexual reproduction.

#12 Nitai

Nitai

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Amsterdam

Posted 11 May 2005 - 10:43 PM

Hello, how are you?

I decided to indicate your statements with M and my with N.

M: Morphology and genetic material is passed down from generation to generation.
N: I don't disagree with this
M: DNA sequences of living species allow us to construct trees of similarities. The more similar the DNA the more recent the common ancestor between the two species.
N: But you are still not abble to demostrate this hypothesis in the laboratory. So what's the point.
M: the exact order of mutation and selection is unknown or extremely shaky.
N: Good point.
M: common ancestory is much easier and more concrete
N: and before you wrote
M: No one is certain of the exact development of chickens, either morphologically or genetically.
N: Isn't this paradoxical?

N: about Galliformes you write
M: they all fall into a parsimonious nested hiearchy, the same arrangement predicted by the theory of evolution.
N: This I can accept within the limit of microevolution and limited mutations. I.g. these Galliformes are all belong to the same bird family. But they are still only Galliforms and nothing else. And again...
M: No one is certain of the exact development of chickens, either morphologically or genetically.
N: Therefore, you have to accept that what you believe is just a hypothesis.

M: why was the egg of the ancestor chicken inadequate? Do you have evidence that the ancestor to the galliformes had an inadequate egg for the divergence of the group into their present species?
N: Did you heard about half hen logic? I tell you. A man who had a hen was becoming rich selling the eggs but he was thinking that the hen eats up too much money. So he cut the hen's head desiring to have only the eggs.
Now I don't have any evidence that the ancestor to the galliformes had an inadequate egg. (Joke: Probably it was eaten up by predators.) But I have an evidence that there was a good egg. What is that? There are so many chickens around. Now, when you speak about ancestor chicken, you have to accept that they also had a good egg otherwise you fall in the trip of half hen logic.
NOTE: My statement about inadequate egg was sarcastic.

Nitai

#13 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 May 2005 - 11:04 PM

I have to ask. What exactly is the point of this thread? There are two views.
Creation: Chicken first.
Evolution: Egg first.

If the thread can't go into something more productive, it will get closed. No offence, but one of the rules here is that threads that really do nothing, waste time, get closed. We do this so that people don't post just anything to be just posting.

I realize the person here who started the thread is new. So no worries, no one holds things against anyone new, unless they break a major rule. this is very minor. Feel free to start another one. Just something more useful. This subject can go on and on with really no end.

Admin3




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users