The chicken came first

dudeinaroom

Here is the proof

And my, no pun intended, cracked view

Toxis

Than what created the chicken? It had to come from an egg...

Zitro

Jesus

dudeinaroom

eggxactly. Sorry, here is the full versions of my ramblings with my wife's support. Am I totally off or is this good science?

My link in the first post is the same link in my on my facebook wall.

Toxis

Jesus never created anything. Just turned Water to wine and cured the sick. God created everything. (unless you believe in rea... Evolution)

dudeinaroom

Well indirectly he created Christianity.

comfortablycurt

Wrong.

Chuck Norris came first, then he invented the egg...which in turn he hatched into a chicken.

True story.

kawizx9r

comfortablycurt wrote: »

Wrong.

Chuck Norris came first, then he invented the egg...which in turn he hatched into a chicken.

True story.

I hear Death once had a near-Chuck-Norris experience.

hearingimpared

"Understanding how chickens make shells is fascinating in itself, but can also give clues towards designing new materials." he said.

Which is good, because in spite of HECToR's hard work and the "scientific proof" it yielded, the study offered no explanation as to how the chicken got there in the first place.

It's all explained in Genisis I.

bobman1235

Neither chicken nor egg came first; a species similar to but evolutionarily behind the chicken laid the first chicken egg

JimKellyfan

How did the chicken become ?
Was that on the 25th day ?
:eek:

BottomFeeder

Dude & Toxis - actually, Jesus was involved in creating everything. Speaking of Jesus, Colossians 1:15-17 says, "Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation, for through him God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can’t see—such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world. Everything was created through him and for him."

Don't want to turn a fun thread into a religious dog fight! Just wanted to clarify what the Bible reveals about Jesus & creation.
Carry on.

dudeinaroom

bobman1235 wrote: »

Neither chicken nor egg came first; a species similar to but evolutionarily behind the chicken laid the first chicken egg

That is my thinking as well. Or possibly two different birds mated and the outcome was the chicken either way I think that the thinking in the article is flawed. The only thing it proves is that only chickens can lay chicken eggs. I want to become a scientist over in Europe, I would be famous.

j allen

I would assume that, from a creationist perspective, the chicken would come first.

From an evolutionary perspective, I would think the egg would have to come first. Some sort of proto-chicken would have laid the first egg that hatched into what we now recognize as a chicken...

headrott

dudeinaroom wrote: »

That is my thinking as well. Or possibly two different birds mated and the outcome was the chicken either way I think that the thinking in the article is flawed. The only thing it proves is that only chickens can lay chicken eggs. I want to become a scientist over in Europe, I would be famous.

Wait a minute, you can't have a non-chicken lay a checken egg. That idea has no logical sense to it. This supposed evolutionary "mostly chicken" cannot have laid an egg that became a chicken right? You cannot magically have a "proto-chicken" lay a chicken egg in one instance or in infinate instances for that matter. There is no such thing as a non-chicken chicken egg. Doesn't make sense.

Greg

j allen

I was typing out a long response in here, then I thought, why are we arguing evolution and creationism in a forum about audio? It's pointless, which is okay, and inflammatory, which is not. Why don't we keep our religious views to ourselves, and go back to rocking out?

Zitro

deleted.

Toolfan66

Ditto!!!!!!

obieone

I predict this thread will devolve into a cable debate. I can just feel it.

Zitro

obieone wrote: »

I predict this thread will devolve into a cable debate. I can just feel it.

Cables, coat hangers; same thing.

obieone

LOL, 2 minutes!

Toolfan66

Zitro wrote: »

Cables, coat hangers; same thing.

They both work well to choke a troll..

dudeinaroom

Or a chicken.

I was not trying to start a religious debate. So if the chicken did not come from the egg, did some other bird just morph into a chicken and start laying an egg? The way I see it it had to come from a bird of some sort that either mated with another bird that was genetically close enough. Or some bird was influenced by some type of toxin that altered the enzymes in it's ovaries which led to the first chicken egg. None of this is meant as hostility, I just saw it on the news last night and was like what?????? I thought it might make for some fun conversation is all.

-dude

Zitro

TOOLFORLIFEFAN wrote: »

They both work well to choke a troll..

:eek:

headrott

My reply was not trying to start a religious debate either. I was using logic as the foundation of my debate. I stated absolutely nothing regarding Christianity, The Bible, or creationism. I did state that a non-chicken laying a chicken egg made no logical sense, which some regard as inflammatory. I see nothing inflammatory or trolling about it. It's a statement of logical fact, period.

Greg

mhardy6647

A hen is an egg's way of getting another egg.

dudeinaroom

None of my comments are directed at anyone person. Any one else have any thoughts on this, I'm looking for a discussion and not an argument. I truly want to know is my thinking flawed in my thinking that the only thing that they have proved is that a chicken is the only animal that can lay a chicken egg.

dudeinaroom

headrott wrote: »

Wait a minute, you can't have a non-chicken lay a checken egg. That idea has no logical sense to it. This supposed evolutionary "mostly chicken" cannot have laid an egg that became a chicken right? You cannot magically have a "proto-chicken" lay a chicken egg in one instance or in infinate instances for that matter. There is no such thing as a non-chicken chicken egg. Doesn't make sense.

Greg

We are not talking about present day, we are talking about the first ever chicken/egg.

This made the CBS evening news. If you did not click on the link and read then here it is for you.

(CBS) British scientists claim to have solved one of the great mysteries of life, the universe and everything in it: The chicken came before the egg, they say, and they're not mincing words.

"It had long been suspected that the egg came first, but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first," Sheffield University's Dr Colin Freeman, according to a report in the Metro.

Researchers from Scotland and England used a supercomputer called HECToR to look in such detail at a chicken eggshell that they were able to determine the vital role of a protein used to kick-start the egg's formation.

That protein is only found, wait for it... inside a chicken.

Freeman, who worked on HECToR with counterparts at Edinburgh's Warwick University, said the protein had been identified earlier by scientists and was known to be linked to egg formation, "but by examining it closely we have been able to see how it controls the process," he added, describing it as a catalyst.

Professor John Harding, who also took part in the research, told Metro the discovery could have other applications.

"Understanding how chickens make shells is fascinating in itself, but can also give clues towards designing new materials." he said.

Which is good, because in spite of HECToR's hard work and the "scientific proof" it yielded, the study offered no explanation as to how the chicken got there in the first place.

If not from an egg, perhaps it just came from across the road.

It just seems to me it is some thing that has pretty much been known. And you could prove the same thing with any other egg laying animal. It is only going to have a protein that can trigger the development of that animals egg. I believe I had said enzyme in previous posts but should have said protein. My mistake.

Am I just looking at this all wrong. Come on we have some pretty smart people on here. Can anybody tell me what I am missing.

bobman1235

headrott wrote: »

My reply was not trying to start a religious debate either. I was using logic as the foundation of my debate. I stated absolutely nothing regarding Christianity, The Bible, or creationism. I did state that a non-chicken laying a chicken egg made no logical sense, which some regard as inflammatory. I see nothing inflammatory or trolling about it. It's a statement of logical fact, period.

Greg

What DOES make sense to you, exactly? Because a "non-chicken" laying a chicken egg is the most likely and logical scenario. It's the entire basis of evolution - species creating other species essentially by accident via mutations combined with gradual change and whatnot.

The other option is that an invisible monster in teh sky created chickens out of nothing, which also doesn't make much logical sense. You're welcome to believe it, but it's certainly not LOGICAL.

seeclear

bobman1235 wrote: »

What DOES make sense to you, exactly? Because a "non-chicken" laying a chicken egg is the most likely and logical scenario. It's the entire basis of evolution - species creating other species essentially by accident via mutations combined with gradual change and whatnot.

Exactly--the whole basis of the theory of evolution is that random mutations can and will occur. Thus, a "non-chicken" laying an egg that holds a "chicken" IS logical if the layer is nearly a chicken and the mutation finishes the job, so to speak.

A mutation, when it occurs, will either be
1- insignificant

2-significant and beneficial to the continued existence of the individual

3- significant and detrimental to the continued existence of the individual.

Result 2 will create more individuals with the new trait, as the original will survive better and procreate.

Result 3 will not create more individuals with the new trait, as he is more likely to die before procreating.

The last 2 statements are true statistically, of course, and not so in every case. For example, a Super Chicken who might even best humans intellectually will not create more Super Chickens if the egg that contains it is eaten by a snake before it even hatches.

jflail2

Chicken 1st. The egg can't appear out of thin air, and reproduction methods have surely changed over time for more than just the mighty chicken. I'd expect they moved towards laying eggs over live birth due to environmental circumstances.