The Chicken or the Egg?

[Carmasa]

When God created the earth, and all the planets, he created the animals, not the fetus. -.-

[Hraesvelg]

Is this supposed to be a serious discussion about abiogenesis and/or evolutionary theory? I would expect so, since this is under mature discussion. I just want to clarify before I take this seriously and get into a discussion about these topics, but the inclusion of whatever a Charmander is in the poll makes me wonder.

[Rof]

Is this supposed to be a serious discussion about abiogenesis and/or evolutionary theory? I would expect so, since this is under mature discussion. I just want to clarify before I take this seriously and get into a discussion about these topics, but the inclusion of whatever a Charmander is in the poll makes me wonder.

LOL!

because Pokemon rule the world at the beginning???

and yeah every mature discussion would be fun with you so share your thoughts...

[lamchopz]

Let's start with the Big Chicken Bang theory. -nod-

[Pritcher]

Lol, ahh this old question. Well, creatures were laying eggs long before chickens roamed the Earth, so the egg came first.

More on point though, if you go with the whole evolution of the modern chicken deal, then the egg still came first. We could go into a long discussion on it, feel free, but I don't really care to. It's fairly simple to sum up; something close to a chicken laid an egg, then inside the egg genetic mutations occurred resulting in the first true chicken emerging from the egg. The egg was first.

I don't really want to touch the religious aspect of the theories on creation and all that, but keep in mind that even the Catholic Church acknowledges the possibility of evolution's role in the creation process.

[Hraesvelg]

Well, the simple answer is that a female sex cell (ovum, or egg) developed long before our modern avian known as a chicken. For the sake of not having another long, drawn out conversation about the origins of life, I'll merely say that evolution doesn't exclude a belief in a higher power. Someone I know made this handy guide, though, for people who wish to argue the point of life developing by evolutionary processes:

[lamchopz]

An interesting note on evolution is that we tend to think of it as "survival of the best" whereas the original phrase clearly says "survival of the fittest". "Best" ,"fittest" are relative terms because you are the fittest in a given set of conditions. Take Darwin's finches, for example. In a drought where food is scarce, the fittest is the flock of finches with small beaks so they'll survive. Equally, we ourselves may not have been the best possible biological form in the evolutionary tree, but we certainly had the right environmental favours for our survival.

For me, evolution is now akin to evolutionary genetic synthesis. Random combinations of genes, along with environmental factors, create diversity as we know it.

And to conclude, I think the egg came first. LOL

[Hraesvelg]

After thinking about it, the rooster probably came first. (If you don't get it kids, ask your parents.)

[Ralath]

An interesting note on evolution is that we tend to think of it as "survival of the best" whereas the original phrase clearly says "survival of the fittest". "Best" ,"fittest" are relative terms because you are the fittest in a given set of conditions.

Actually, if I recall correctly, the term that Darwin uses in On the Origin of the Species is "survival of the most fit." Maybe he uses both. *can't remember* It's a subtle difference but I think it's an important one. An individual doesn't have to be the "fittest" to survive, but only the "most fit" compared to its competitor. @_@;;

Darwin is so careful in writing Origin of the Species because he's well versed in religion himself that he's well aware of the consequences of what he is writing. He's very careful in the terms he uses.

[Hraesvelg]

That's why those phrases tend to be avoided when discussing the theory in modern discussions. They're meant to be a sort of handy condensement of the idea, but some take the phrase too literally for it to be of worth. As a great primer for people interested in how the theory works, I suggest reading Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene. It still holds up remarkably well even after all this time. It really walks you through the concepts involved.