Chicken or the egg?

I humbly offer my answer to the question. After working in the Biotech industry for most of my adult working life � many of those years spent in genetic research labs, I�ve had a few ideas and now I�ll toss one out:

I say the Egg came first.

The Reason:

Considering evolution [this is a science forum! Anyone tries to argue against evolution better be wearing asbestos undies!], over time the changes take place, gradual as they may be, still they do.

The first chicken came from an egg � Nobody should argue that, I would hope.

The egg now, was laid by whatever was the direct evolutionary step before a full fledged chicken.

It may have been damn close to a chicken, but not one [else the argument would fall back to the circular one we�ve come to know.

Something came before the chicken.

Evolution brought us what is now a chicken.

Ipso Facto, ergo, i.e.: e.g., to whit,

I rest my case.

Q.E.D.

Actually, this isnt that much of a breakthrough. As far as I was aware, all intelligent groups/people had come to this conclusion quite a while ago, many of them without needing to work in the biotech industry for most of their lives.

Asbestos undies, eh?

Accepting the current theories of evolution, your logic is sound. I had come to the same conclusion myself.

But, as you said, this is a science forum. Evolutionary theory is closer to religion. There is no conclusive proof. It's a theory, and it requires faith.

We know for a fact that life evolves and has always evolved. Just because we dont have fossils of EVERY single animal ever alive doesnt mean that we dont know how evolution took place.

Evolution is far from fact... and even established "facts" have fallen from that point of view in the public eye under closer examination over time. I mean... after all everyone knows its a fact that the world is flat right?

But yes I too, accepting the current theories of evolution, came to that conclusion long ago aswell.

The chicken and egg thing is fairly obvious.

Evolution is a proven fact. The flat earth thing was accepted as fact, but with nothing to back it up except faith.

If you want proof that evolution exists, read articles on anti-bacterial resistant germs.

Microevolution = 100% uncontestable proven concrete rock-solid beyond any and all doubt fact.

Macroevolution = Mostly theory. Although Archeopterix is a great transitional fossil between bird and reptile.

I'd say evolution has a hell of alot more going for it than any other theory. Probably because evolution rests on evidence and data.

yes i would have to agree with your logic however when did a chicken evolve to become a chicken is there actually a threshhold or is it just random guessing?

Of course your right meta, but the question now becomes: Of the chickens very first ancestor, what came first?

Yes, but if you're following evolutionary lines back from the chicken, you eventually reach some single-cell organism that has no egg.

Hmmm, the jumps from self replicating protiens(prions?) to virus' to bacteria seem to be a series of eggs without chickens, each form is a level of complexity higher than the last. At what point do we say that one form is no longer derivative of its predecessors and represents a beginning rather than a continuation? Hmmmm... zogs brain hurt

Ah but if the evolution theory is used in this case then would it be safe to say chickens came after dinosaurs? Shouldn't this topic be "Which came first? Egg or dinosaur?" instead then? Or even comparing the egg to something else that came before the dinosaurs perhaps?

Another human defect- The want to think that everything is finite just because we as individuals are. What says that life isn't infinite? How do we know that it doesn't just loop back round somewhere and that we are doomed to do it again and again and again and again and again (well you get the picture). How do we know that Humans (or another intelligent species) don't destroy the universe leaving only the simplest of life- single cell organisms- that evolve and evolve and evolve and evolve until they are a highly intellegent species that destroys the unviverse leaving only the simplest of life- single cell organisms- that evolve and evolve...

Chunkmiester
Oh- have "i" said this before?
Oh- have "i" said this before?

I have always been vaguely paranoid that someday some et's are going to come and "harvest" the seeds they planted a few million years ago. But I read too much science fiction.

you can never read too much science fiction!

and as for the chicken and the egg thing other said that all intelenget groups/people(which is just a really small group ist it?) have come to realize that the egg came first well then christians arent intellegent! not a big leap but still.. reason being that according to the bible god placed all living things on this earth in their mature form so no egg! but i still dont get the whole six days of creation and millions of years in between dinos and man but that may be because i dont think about it much

Any one with half a brain knows the egg came first cuz well dinosaurs came first, but then again anyone with half a brain can spell.

CTR

Well now..
There has been much research conducted, and it was determined that life came from this process:
When large ammounts of electricity pass through saltwater, amino acids are produced, which we all know are the most simple block of living matter, which through other chemical reactions formed into proteins and eventually protoplasm. Which then in some electrochemical reaction, produced the first living cell, which then reproduced and later evolved. So therefore, there never was an egg, until far after those first unicellular organisms had already reproduced. so really, cells came first and reproduced, so when you go really far back, life didn't start with an egg.

NSS, cells werent even in the question not one person here thinks an egg just poped out of nowhere and started life.

CTR

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThetaReactor:
Evolutionary theory is closer to religion. There is no conclusive proof. It's a theory, and it requires [b]faith.[/B]

---

Why is it that with evolution as with nothing else, people with a little imformation automatically assume they know everything? Very weird.

I would suggest that you actually learn something about evolution before making such bold statements.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/ http://www.utm.edu/~rirwin/391EvidEvol.htm

As well as many excellent books, such as most by Richard Dawson.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frey Grimrod:
Evolution is far from fact...

---

That's not true. Evolution is as much fact as gravity. It is the basis for biology, medicine, and genetics.

There is a widespread and fundamental confusion over the term "theory." It means, in the scientific sense, "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena," rather than the everyday sense, that is, a conjecture.

Evolution is a falsifiable theory that has been repeatedly tested for over 100 years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frey Grimrod:
and even established "facts" have fallen from that point of view in the public eye under closer examination over time. I mean... after all everyone knows its a fact that the world is flat right?

---

1. Your statement implies that nothing can ever be truly accepted as fact, because it may be proven incorrect. This includes the idea that the Earth is round.

2. It is a great misconception that everyone thought that the Earth was flat. That was pretty much limited to Judeo-Christianity and certain primitive cultures. The Greeks, for example, knew the Earth was round.
*This is no lon

quote:

---

There is a widespread and fundamental confusion over the term "theory." It means, in the scientific sense, "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena," rather than the everyday sense, that is, a conjecture.

---

You neglected other parts of that definition. A theory can also be

Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

A law, however, is


A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.

I've done much study on the subject. I have seen arguments and evidence for evolution, and similar arguments against it. As long as there is reasonable evidence against it, evolution is merely a workable theory, not a fact.

quote:

---

2. It is a great misconception that everyone thought that the Earth was flat. That was pretty much limited to Judeo-Christianity and certain primitive cultures. The Greeks, for example, knew the Earth was round.

---

This is a great example of sociological influences on science. When Copernicus published his heliocentric theory in 1543, most philosophers and scientists of the time rejected the idea, despite clear physical evidence.

Science is an art of observation. We can directly observe the motions of the planets, the shape of the earth, or the effects of gravity on fat women. Things such as these may be presented as fact, because these direct observations are the absolute best evidence we can get.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThetaReactor:
You neglected other parts of that definition. A theory can also be

Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

---

Look again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lysander:
...rather than the everyday sense, that is, a conjecture.

---

The definition you gave for theory is not the definition of a scientific theory. That's why we say scientific theory, to distinguish it from everyday-type theory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThetaReactor:
A law, however, is

A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity

---

Herein lies the problem. You are using non-analogous definitions of law and theory. A few quotations from a good site might help clear it up.

quote:

---

LAW

1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).

3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).



THEORY

1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)

2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).

3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].

5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).

6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).

---

Laws describe. Theories explain.

quote:

---

Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science. Furthermore, notice that with any of the above definitions of law, neither scientists nor nature "conform" to the law. In science, a law is not something that is dictated to scientists or nature; it is not something that a scientist or nature has to do under threat of some penalty if they don't conform.

---

A theory is not a law, not because it's unproven or pure speculation (they have a word for speculation in science: hypothesis.), but because they are fundamentally different things. A theory will never be a law. That's why we still have Atomic Theory, and Cell Theory. There's probably not a single educated, semi-rational person who will argue against them, yet they are theories. In the same way, evolution is a theory. Evolution is an accepted fact, just like atoms and cells.

[i]On the Origin of Species[i] was first published in 1859. It caused a shitstorm of controversy. Almost everyone tried to prove it wrong. No one succeeded then, or in the next 143 years. Quite the opposite.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThetaReactor:
I have seen arguments and evidence for evolution, and similar arguments against it.

---

There are no arguments for evolution, just like there are no arguments for atomic theory. Only creationists use that term. There is only data.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThetaReactor:
As long as there is reasonable evidence against it, evolution is merely a workable theory, not a fact.

---

I would very much like to see this reasonable evidence, as well as an arguments. Start a new thread if you wish.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThetaReactor:
This is a great example of sociological influences on science.

---

No, it's not. The idea that the Earth is flat did not come from science, but from religion. That most people think everyone once thought the Earth was flat is probably due to unfortunate oversimplification, whiggish history, and perhaps some particularly egregious induction, among other things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThetaReactor:
When Copernicus published his heliocentric theory in 1543, most philosophers and scientists of the time rejected the idea, despite clear physical evidence.

---

This was due to three factors:
1. The general stubbornness of man. These people had invested so much and believed so long in heliocentricity, it was simply very hard to admit that there were wrong.
2. Religion. Setting aside the fact that heliocentricity was cause enough for execution, many of these people were Judeo-Christians, and the idea that humanity was not the center of the universe was a major blow.
3. Copernican heliocentricity had flaws. It was not until Galileo and others refined it that it became the clear winner.

By the way, helocentricity is a theory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThetaReactor:
Science is an art of observation. We can directly observe the motions of the planets, the shape of the earth, or the effects of gravity on fat women. Things such as these may be presented as fact, because these direct observations are the absolute best evidence we can get.

---

True, but irrelevant.

[This message has been edited by Lysander (edited 10-17-2002).]

I swear somtimes I think of how far we came.. but then questions like this prove just how swept up we get.
I agree with chunk. I also think this question has prob. been pondered and solved by other intelligent beings a long time before us.
It's funny how we think that our span of exsistence is the only reinging inhabitent in all of the universe. Earth alone could of been occupied serveral times by human like or nonlike species. It's very logical to say this just keeping in mind that we have no idea what was really before dino's.

I say the answer lies in the grey area. Somthing other than egg gave life to chicken as we know it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by abstractAffect:
It's funny how we think that our span of exsistence is the only reinging inhabitent in all of the universe. Earth alone could of been occupied serveral times by human like or nonlike species. It's very logical to say this just keeping in mind that we have no idea what was really before dino's.

---

HUH? Where the hell did you get your education?

It is well known what came before the dinosaurs. Hell, just off the top of my head I can think of the whole Carboniforus period. Tons of stuff from trillobytes to mosses have been found. True, there is not as much known about the earlier periods, but there is still plenty.

If I knew you I would smack you silly, though it looks like someone beat me too it.