|
|
#1
04-13-2007, 10:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
philosophy
what came first, the chicken or the egg?
without answering this question, how can we debate the existance of God? 
|
|
#3
04-13-2007, 10:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: philosophy
The egg came first as the first chickens were hatched from the mutant offspring of some type of lizard.
|
|
#5
04-13-2007, 11:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: philosophy
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The egg came first as the first chickens were hatched from the mutant offspring of some type of lizard. [/ QUOTE ] There were no "first chickens" DUCY? [/ QUOTE ] No I don't. PLease explain. New species are formed from other species. Usually this occurs when some mutants are born. Some mutants die off, but some have mutations that help them deal better with their enviroment than their non-mutant ancestors. They thrive and reproduce with each other and the "mutants" eventually become the norm. Rinse and repeat. Yes? And when I say mutation I mean something very slight, like a slightly more curved beak or an extra web on a foot. And this all happens very gradually of course.
|
|
#6
04-13-2007, 03:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: philosophy
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The egg came first as the first chickens were hatched from the mutant offspring of some type of lizard. [/ QUOTE ] There were no "first chickens" DUCY? [/ QUOTE ] No I don't. PLease explain. New species are formed from other species. Usually this occurs when some mutants are born. Some mutants die off, but some have mutations that help them deal better with their enviroment than their non-mutant ancestors. They thrive and reproduce with each other and the "mutants" eventually become the norm. Rinse and repeat. Yes? And when I say mutation I mean something very slight, like a slightly more curved beak or an extra web on a foot. And this all happens very gradually of course. [/ QUOTE ] All true, or at least close enough. None the less, never was there a first chicken. The reason for this is that species are more or less arbitrary dividing lines based on reproductive compatibility, and the only reason we aren't confronted with this arbitrariness daily is because we are fortunate that 99.99999999% of all organisms that have ever lived are dead. Never was there an animal that was not a chicken that gave birth to a chicken. There are no two animals in direct succession that would ever be considered a different species. I mean, it is at least POSSIBLE (at least, I can think of nothing that would prevent it) that a parent could give birth to offspring that are no longer reproductively compatible, but its extremely unlikely to persist in anything meaningful. How would that offspring mate? It could not. The best example to illustrate this concept, IMO, are ring species. You have two species on the 'ends' or the ring that are clearly and obviously different species, and are reproductively isolated. But as you track around the ring, at no point does another species come into play. A is not a different species from B, B not from C, C not from D, but lo and behold, D and A are different species. Where was the first D? It does not exist, nor has it ever.
|
|
#8
04-15-2007, 12:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: philosophy
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The egg came first as the first chickens were hatched from the mutant offspring of some type of lizard. [/ QUOTE ] There were no "first chickens" DUCY? [/ QUOTE ] No I don't. PLease explain. New species are formed from other species. Usually this occurs when some mutants are born. Some mutants die off, but some have mutations that help them deal better with their enviroment than their non-mutant ancestors. They thrive and reproduce with each other and the "mutants" eventually become the norm. Rinse and repeat. Yes? And when I say mutation I mean something very slight, like a slightly more curved beak or an extra web on a foot. And this all happens very gradually of course. [/ QUOTE ] All true, or at least close enough. None the less, never was there a first chicken. The reason for this is that species are more or less arbitrary dividing lines based on reproductive compatibility, and the only reason we aren't confronted with this arbitrariness daily is because we are fortunate that 99.99999999% of all organisms that have ever lived are dead. Never was there an animal that was not a chicken that gave birth to a chicken. There are no two animals in direct succession that would ever be considered a different species. I mean, it is at least POSSIBLE (at least, I can think of nothing that would prevent it) that a parent could give birth to offspring that are no longer reproductively compatible, but its extremely unlikely to persist in anything meaningful. How would that offspring mate? It could not. The best example to illustrate this concept, IMO, are ring species. You have two species on the 'ends' or the ring that are clearly and obviously different species, and are reproductively isolated. But as you track around the ring, at no point does another species come into play. A is not a different species from B, B not from C, C not from D, but lo and behold, D and A are different species. Where was the first D? It does not exist, nor has it ever. [/ QUOTE ] Suppose D is a chicken. Is C a chicken? If not, then D is the fist chicken. If C is a chicken, then is B a chicken? If not, then C is the first chicken. Is it indeterminate whether or not C is a chicken? Then D is the first chicken.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
