The chicken, or the egg?

24 views
Skip to first unread message

AGelbart

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 9:29:43 AM3/22/03
to
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I've tried to trace it back through
evoloution, and when I get to the invertebrates, I get stuck. I know it
probably has something to do with single-celled animals, and mitosis. Someone
please help. I can't sleep at night.

TomS

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 9:47:56 AM3/22/03
to
"On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:29:43 +0000 (UTC), in article
<20030322092903...@mb-cl.aol.com>, agel...@aol.com stated..."

I wonder what the creationist answer is for this problem.

Oh, don't tell me: "Goddiddit" That's the answer.

Why is the sky blue (rather than, for example, a nice magenta and
cerise paisley)? Why do we park on driveways and drive on parkways?
Why did the chicken cross the road? "Goddiddit"

Tom S.

P.S. Oh, by the way, if you've traced the history of life back far
enough, you've probably discovered that there were eggs before there
were chickens, before there were birds, before there were vertebrates.
P.P.S. ObLargeMouthBass: If you're a troll, don't feel that you're
being so original. Real creationists have asked this question.

AGelbart

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 10:02:37 AM3/22/03
to
I'm not a creationist. I don't know where you get that impression. I'm asking
an honest question. What is the scientific answer for this question?

Justin Emalius

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 10:06:37 AM3/22/03
to

Depending on the answer to that question, how did the rooster or sperm
manage to come at the same time?

--

That is all.
Justin Emalius

John Harshman

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 10:34:23 AM3/22/03
to

AGelbart wrote:

> I'm not a creationist. I don't know where you get that impression. I'm asking
> an honest question. What is the scientific answer for this question?


If the question is about eggs in general, there were eggs several
hundred million years before there were chickens.

If the question is about chicken eggs specifically, it's a matter of
definition. First, is a chicken egg an egg laid by a chicken, or an egg
that a chicken hatches out of? Second, what's a chicken? Chickens are a
domesticated relative of the wild red jungle fowl. At what point along
that process do we stop calling them red jungle fowl and start calling
them chickens? Evolution makes many questions hard to answer, since
populations are evolving gradually along a continuum. It's like asking
where orange leaves off and red begins.

Chris Stassen

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 10:35:02 AM3/22/03
to
AGelbart wrote:
> Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The semi-crude humorous answer is that the rooster came first.

The nit-picky answer is that the egg (dinosaurs laid them) came first.
Then you have to ask which came first, the chicken or the *chicken* egg.

The "evolutionary" answer is that there's not a clear dividing line
between the chicken and its not-a-chicken precursors and therefore the
question is kind of meaningless.

The serious answer is that it is just a semantics question, a matter of
how you define "chicken egg." Suppose that you can come up with some
incredibly precise "what's a chicken" criteria and use this to identify
the very first chicken. Then...
(1) If you define the chicken egg as "an egg which *contains* a
chicken," the egg that hatched the first chicken would count, and
therefore the egg came first.
(2) If you define the chicken egg as "an egg which was *laid by* a
chicken," the egg that hatched the first chicken would not count, and
therefore the chicken came first.

--
Chris Stassen http://www.stassen.com/chris
NOTE: "occu...@stassen.com" is NOT a valid E-mail address

Dave Oldridge

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 12:01:36 PM3/22/03
to
agel...@aol.com (AGelbart) wrote in
news:20030322092903...@mb-cl.aol.com:

As actually posed, the question is no problem at all. The egg was evolved
long before the first chicken hatched from one.

But I see where you're coming from.

Still, there should be something in the literature. Eggs seem a logical
development from early animals that reproduce by simply dividing.

--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667

Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.

Lane Lewis

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 1:07:29 PM3/22/03
to

"AGelbart" <agel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030322092903...@mb-cl.aol.com...

The chicken and the egg evolved at the same time or did so with a
precursor such as the dinosaur or fish. The advantage of laying an egg
is that the fetus has a longer gestation period and the parent has less
maintenance of the young. Live births were first but some animals
through a mutation started laying eggs.

Lane

raven1

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 1:32:42 PM3/22/03
to
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:02:37 +0000 (UTC), agel...@aol.com (AGelbart)
wrote:

>I'm not a creationist. I don't know where you get that impression. I'm asking
>an honest question. What is the scientific answer for this question?

The egg predates birds by millions of years.


John Segerson

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 2:03:19 PM3/22/03
to

Chris Stassen wrote:

> AGelbart wrote:
>
>>Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
>>
>
> The semi-crude humorous answer is that the rooster came first.
>


Obviously a city feller.

J:-)


[snip]

Michael Painter

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 3:04:12 PM3/22/03
to

"Justin Emalius" <notta...@notta.domain.not> wrote in message
news:e__ea.53244$Ad6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Here comes the smut, Martha.

Mitch A. Kaboola

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 3:17:03 PM3/22/03
to
Lane Lewis wrote:
> precursor such as the dinosaur or fish. The advantage of laying an egg
> is that the fetus has a longer gestation period and the parent has
> less maintenance of the young. Live births were first but some animals
> through a mutation started laying eggs.

Preposterous

--
Mitch A. Kaboola

Justin Emalius

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 5:29:11 PM3/22/03
to

Hmm.. . not the best choice of words, was it :)?

mel turner

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 7:32:39 PM3/22/03
to
In article <20030322092903...@mb-cl.aol.com>,
agel...@aol.com wrote...

>
>Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

To answer it, you'll have to define your terms more precisely.

What do you mean by "the egg"? Egg cells in general? Differentiated
egg cells and sperm cells go all the way back to the first metazoans
[with independent origins in plants, algae and fungi]. Shelled eggs
more or less like modern bird eggs? They go back to the first
amniotes, long before there were chickens or birds. Bird eggs?
Chickens weren't among the first birds.

Or "chicken" eggs?

What do you mean by "the chicken"? The species Gallus gallus,to which
modern domestic chickens belong, as well as their wild relatives the
red jungle fowl? Just the domesticated chickens? The whole genus
Gallus, to which belongs other wild chickens besides the familiar
species? The family Phasianidae, which contains chickens and various
other chickenlike birds?

A clue to why the old question is meaningless: new biological species
generally don't arise as single individuals or all in one generation.
If you're talking about the evolutionary origin of "true chickens",
whatever that means, then you're talking about a gradual transition
that wouldn't involve any identifiable individual "first chicken" or
"first chicken egg".

So, the best answer to your question might be "neither".

Here's a good analogy that might help:

We know very well that French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian, etc. are
languages that evolved as "new species" from a "common ancestor"
[Latin] during historical times. Your "chicken/egg" question is a
lot like someone asking questions about the very first French speaker.
Was it a man or a woman, and how did she/he ever find anyone else to
talk to?

If you can understand how whole regional dialect of the ancestral
language could gradually change and diverge over many generations
without requiring any "first speakers" of the descendant languages,
you might see how there need be no "first chicken" or first chicken
egg.

>I've tried to trace it back through
>evoloution, and when I get to the invertebrates, I get stuck.

What does this mean? If you got to invertebrates [which do indeed
reproduce using differentiated sperms and egg cells], then you've
obviously "traced it back" far beyond the first chickens.

>I know it
>probably has something to do with single-celled animals, and mitosis.
Someone
>please help. I can't sleep at night.

It has little to do with the single-celled organisms or mitosis.
However, single-celled organisms do show that sexual recombination
[often involving fusions of gametes that resemble one another, not
differentiated sperm cells and egg cells] did arise long before
there were multicellular plants and animals and sperms and eggs.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a3nr7b%24p47%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9pud9c%24p41%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9hq93p%24pg2%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6guf3n%245vk%241%40news.duke.edu

cheers


Weatherfn

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 7:38:51 PM3/22/03
to
If the chicken evolved from the wild red jungle fowl, that fowl would develope
an egg that, through evolution, would be a chicken. Thus the egg came before
the chicken.

J McCoy

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 7:48:56 PM3/22/03
to
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<b5ht3...@drn.newsguy.com>...

> "On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:29:43 +0000 (UTC), in article
> <20030322092903...@mb-cl.aol.com>, agel...@aol.com stated..."
> >
> >Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I've tried to trace it back through
> >evoloution, and when I get to the invertebrates, I get stuck. I know it
> >probably has something to do with single-celled animals, and mitosis. Someone
> >please help. I can't sleep at night.
> >
>
> I wonder what the creationist answer is for this problem.
>
> Oh, don't tell me: "Goddiddit" That's the answer.

Don't tell me, the evolutionist answer is "naturediddit." That's the
answer.


> Why is the sky blue (rather than, for example, a nice magenta and
> cerise paisley)? Why do we park on driveways and drive on parkways?
> Why did the chicken cross the road? "Goddiddit"

"Naturediddit."

>
> Tom S.
>
> P.S. Oh, by the way, if you've traced the history of life back far
> enough, you've probably discovered that there were eggs before there
> were chickens, before there were birds, before there were vertebrates.
> P.P.S. ObLargeMouthBass: If you're a troll, don't feel that you're
> being so original. Real creationists have asked this question.

Funny, an honest question that turns into a ridicule romp against the
opposing theory. That is to say that if the evolutionist makes fun of
the Creationist point of view, with simplistic "goddiddit" cat calls,
then that would be enough to cause someone to believe in the
evolutionary idea.

Let's see, one day an egg popped up on the seashore.

Can't explain it. Thought you couldn't.

J McCoy

J McCoy

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 7:51:23 PM3/22/03
to
John Harshman <harshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<3E7C59AB...@pacbell.net>...

Yes, so what came first, the egg or whatever.

J McCoy

"No answer time" is the answer from the evolutionists.

Frank J

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 8:15:11 PM3/22/03
to
agel...@aol.com (AGelbart) wrote in message news:<20030322092903...@mb-cl.aol.com>...

The question that really puzzles me is "Which came first, the ribozyme
or the ribozyme?"

mel turner

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 9:31:21 PM3/22/03
to
In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, mc...@sunset.net
wrote...

>John Harshman <harshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:<3E7C59AB...@pacbell.net>...
>> AGelbart wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not a creationist. I don't know where you get that impression. I'm
>>>asking an honest question. What is the scientific answer for this
>>>question?
>>
>>
>> If the question is about eggs in general, there were eggs several
>> hundred million years before there were chickens.
>>
>> If the question is about chicken eggs specifically, it's a matter of
>> definition. First, is a chicken egg an egg laid by a chicken, or an egg
>> that a chicken hatches out of? Second, what's a chicken? Chickens are a
>> domesticated relative of the wild red jungle fowl.

Or do the jungle fowl all count as "wild chickens"?

>> At what point along
>> that process do we stop calling them red jungle fowl and start calling
>> them chickens? Evolution makes many questions hard to answer, since
>> populations are evolving gradually along a continuum. It's like asking
>> where orange leaves off and red begins.

>Yes, so what came first, the egg or whatever.

Again:
The common ancestors of all modern multicellular animals reproduced
with sperms and egg cells long before there were any birds. Reptiles
laid shelled, yolky "birdlike" eggs long before one group of them
became "birds". Birds laid bird eggs long before there were any
chickens.

If "chicken" here means a species like "Gallus gallus" or some other
evolutionary lineage [like the genus Gallus or maybe even the
Phasianidae], then "chickens" and "chicken eggs" arose gradually and
concurrently. Neither came first.

The first domesticated "chickens" might have been collected as eggs
or caught as already-hatched birds, or something in-between [perhaps
early people kept semi-wild "chickens" that were more or less free to
go, while harvesting some of the eggs and the occasional bird]. Thus,
"which came first?" is all pretty meaningless.

>J McCoy
>
>"No answer time" is the answer from the evolutionists.

Wrong, as usual. Like 'em or not, there are clear answers.

cheers


AC

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 9:50:30 PM3/22/03
to
In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:
> TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<b5ht3...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> "On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:29:43 +0000 (UTC), in article
>> <20030322092903...@mb-cl.aol.com>, agel...@aol.com stated..."
>> >
>> >Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I've tried to trace it back through
>> >evoloution, and when I get to the invertebrates, I get stuck. I know it
>> >probably has something to do with single-celled animals, and mitosis. Someone
>> >please help. I can't sleep at night.
>> >
>>
>> I wonder what the creationist answer is for this problem.
>>
>> Oh, don't tell me: "Goddiddit" That's the answer.
>
> Don't tell me, the evolutionist answer is "naturediddit." That's the
> answer.

Nature builds stars, crystals and innumerable compounds. Do you disagree?
Are you reaching for Jo Jean's belief that God micromanages every
interaction in the Universe?

>
>
>> Why is the sky blue (rather than, for example, a nice magenta and
>> cerise paisley)? Why do we park on driveways and drive on parkways?
>> Why did the chicken cross the road? "Goddiddit"
>
> "Naturediddit."

I can actually provide evidence of the existence of nature. Please provide
your evidence for your deity.

>
>>
>> Tom S.
>>
>> P.S. Oh, by the way, if you've traced the history of life back far
>> enough, you've probably discovered that there were eggs before there
>> were chickens, before there were birds, before there were vertebrates.
>> P.P.S. ObLargeMouthBass: If you're a troll, don't feel that you're
>> being so original. Real creationists have asked this question.
>
> Funny, an honest question that turns into a ridicule romp against the
> opposing theory.

There is no opposing theory.

>That is to say that if the evolutionist makes fun of
> the Creationist point of view,
> with simplistic "goddiddit" cat calls,
> then that would be enough to cause someone to believe in the
> evolutionary idea.

No, we just get tired of repeating ourselves to the perpetually ignorant.
And of course, to liars like yourself.

>
> Let's see, one day an egg popped up on the seashore.
>
> Can't explain it. Thought you couldn't.

That's not evolution, and you know it Mr. McCoy. Why are you lying? Do
you think your deity will reward your deceit?

--
A. Clausen

maureen...@nospam.alberni.net (Remove "nospam." to contact me)

Greg

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 11:21:49 PM3/22/03
to
John Harshman <harshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<3E7C59AB...@pacbell.net>...

Now we're getting somewhere. Let's say the first chicken was the first
domesticated red jungle fowl. It would be difficult to domesticate an
adult wild bird. Fowl imprint on the first moving thing the see after
hatching, so if the wild hen was tending the nest when the chick
hatched it would still be wild, IMHO. So, the first chicken would be
the first red jungle fowl to imprint on a human. All subsequent
offspring could imprint on the domesticated hen and still be
domesticated. When I say "the first red jungle fowl" I mean in the
continuous line of descendants to present day chickens, rather than
some accident.

Therefore, the chick would have to be in the shell when it was taken.
If it was still within the eggshell, it would have to be in the late
stages of incubation as it is unlikely that a human who had never seen
a chicken could tend the nest as well as a hen.

At that point the egg would essentially be a shell with a chick in it
instead of an embryo that we normally consider as an egg as a food
product.

My just-so story shows that the first chicken was likely to be a
peeping eggshell, neither a real egg nor a moving-around chicken.
--
Greg

I am Leghorn of Borg.
Prepare, ah say, prepare to be assimilated!

Mark VandeWettering

unread,
Mar 23, 2003, 1:00:16 AM3/23/03
to
In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:

Eggs precede chickens.

Mark

TomS

unread,
Mar 23, 2003, 6:19:15 AM3/23/03
to
"On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 02:50:30 +0000 (UTC), in article
<slrnb7q8ai.vg....@clausen.alberni.net>, AC stated..."

If you go back to my post, you will note that I *did* mention
that there were eggs long before there were chickens. I did answer
the question. (And, I think you may excuse me for thinking that
the tone of the original question was not all that serious. I
doubt whether the poster "can't sleep at night" over this.)

The question remains for the creationist, though, and I don't
know why they don't want to answer it. "Which came first, the
chicken or the egg?" Were chickens (along with other creatures
of the air) created on the fifth day, or were eggs created then?
Were chicken eggs *food* for humans on the fifth day -- before
there were humans -- and before the Fall of Adam, did Adam kill
the eggs to eat them? In the book by Burgess, which I mentioned
in another thread, "Hallmarks of Design", the convenience and
nutrition of the chicken egg, as human food, is one thing pointing
to divine design. (And animal hide, as leather for human
clothing, is another, even though it also depends upon death.)

Whether or not the original poster was a creationist, the
question that he brought up did make me think of a puzzle for
creationism.

>
>>
>> Let's see, one day an egg popped up on the seashore.
>>
>> Can't explain it. Thought you couldn't.
>
>That's not evolution, and you know it Mr. McCoy. Why are you lying? Do
>you think your deity will reward your deceit?

Tom S.

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Mar 23, 2003, 8:50:45 AM3/23/03
to

"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com...

snipping for length

> Let's see, one day an egg popped up on the seashore.

That's what Creationists claim.


>
> Can't explain it. Thought you couldn't.

Evolutionary theory explains the origin of the egg. Creationism doesn't.

BTW, why don't you give someone a chance to answer your questions before
you declare them to be unanswered?

DJT


J McCoy

unread,
Mar 23, 2003, 4:24:35 PM3/23/03
to
"Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message news:<b5ke4i$29r1lk$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...

> "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> news:3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com...
>
> snipping for length
>
> > Let's see, one day an egg popped up on the seashore.
>
> That's what Creationists claim.
>
>
> >
> > Can't explain it. Thought you couldn't.
>
> Evolutionary theory explains the origin of the egg. Creationism doesn't.

Scientific Creationists say that a creator God most probably formed
the living beings fully formed. This needs to be so being that nature
is highly complex and interdependent. You need oxygen from the
plants, and some plants need animals, etc. Not an egg, however.
Biblical Creationists are even more specific, specifying the first
humans and their history.


>
> BTW, why don't you give someone a chance to answer your questions before
> you declare them to be unanswered?


Because you haven't answered them and this is your first answer.

>
> DJT

J McCoy

unread,
Mar 23, 2003, 4:33:11 PM3/23/03
to
AC <maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnb7q8ai.vg....@clausen.alberni.net>...

> In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:
> > TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<b5ht3...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> >> "On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:29:43 +0000 (UTC), in article
> >> <20030322092903...@mb-cl.aol.com>, agel...@aol.com stated..."
> >> >
> >> >Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I've tried to trace it back through
> >> >evoloution, and when I get to the invertebrates, I get stuck. I know it
> >> >probably has something to do with single-celled animals, and mitosis. Someone
> >> >please help. I can't sleep at night.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I wonder what the creationist answer is for this problem.
> >>
> >> Oh, don't tell me: "Goddiddit" That's the answer.
> >
> > Don't tell me, the evolutionist answer is "naturediddit." That's the
> > answer.
>
> Nature builds stars, crystals and innumerable compounds. Do you disagree?
> Are you reaching for Jo Jean's belief that God micromanages every
> interaction in the Universe?

Nobody has proved that Nature builds stars. This is clear in that if
light takes billions of years to travel through space, it would be
impossible to determine birth or origins. Death, maybe. Nobody has a
video tape of a star being created, only a series of stills of which
we are told what has occured. Which we do not know that occurred.

You're right on the organizing techniques of crystals and some
compounds. But since these are based on simple mechanics I have to
disagree. They are merely simple formations that occur naturally,
just as if one dropped a bunch of magnets they would all end up
clinging to each other. And if each magnet had a similar shape, the
out come of the cohesion would form that which is semi-predetermined.
There is nothing in nature that indicates that chemicals will cohere
to create life. That is a pipe-dream.

The thing to do with pipe-dream's is to quit smokin'.


>
> >
> >
> >> Why is the sky blue (rather than, for example, a nice magenta and
> >> cerise paisley)? Why do we park on driveways and drive on parkways?
> >> Why did the chicken cross the road? "Goddiddit"
> >
> > "Naturediddit."
>
> I can actually provide evidence of the existence of nature. Please provide
> your evidence for your deity.


Where evolutionists are not willing to admit is that they attribute
powers to nature that do not exist. This power is the invisible deity
of evolutionists.


J McCoy

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Mar 23, 2003, 4:51:43 PM3/23/03
to

"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com...
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
news:<b5ke4i$29r1lk$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > snipping for length
> >
> > > Let's see, one day an egg popped up on the seashore.
> >
> > That's what Creationists claim.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Can't explain it. Thought you couldn't.
> >
> > Evolutionary theory explains the origin of the egg. Creationism
doesn't.
>
> Scientific Creationists say that a creator God most probably formed
> the living beings fully formed.

There is no evidence of a supernatural creator.


>This needs to be so being that nature
> is highly complex and interdependent. You need oxygen from the
> plants, and some plants need animals, etc.

That is assuming that the entire modern ecosystem was there from the
beginning. That is not the case.


> Not an egg, however.
> Biblical Creationists are even more specific, specifying the first
> humans and their history.


However those "specifics" rely not on the evidence, but on an ancient
religious legend. There is no evidence that the entire population descended
from a single pair of humans.

>
>
> >
> > BTW, why don't you give someone a chance to answer your questions
before
> > you declare them to be unanswered?
>
>
> Because you haven't answered them and this is your first answer.

Is it just me, or does this sentence make absolutely no sense?


DJT


Mark VandeWettering

unread,
Mar 23, 2003, 4:54:31 PM3/23/03
to
In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message news:<b5ke4i$29r1lk$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
>> "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
>> news:3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> snipping for length
>>
>> > Let's see, one day an egg popped up on the seashore.
>>
>> That's what Creationists claim.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Can't explain it. Thought you couldn't.
>>
>> Evolutionary theory explains the origin of the egg. Creationism doesn't.
>
> Scientific Creationists say that a creator God most probably formed
> the living beings fully formed.

Most probably? Please, demonstrate scientifically how this is the
"most probable" explanation for the origin of living things. (Hint: if
you can't actually assign probabilities to the various possibilities, you
are gonna have a tough time...)

> This needs to be so being that nature is highly complex and
> interdependent.

No, it doesn't.

> You need oxygen from the plants, and some plants need animals,
> etc. Not an egg, however. Biblical Creationists are even more
> specific, specifying the first humans and their history.

Specific, but not correct.


>> BTW, why don't you give someone a chance to answer your questions
>> before you declare them to be unanswered?
>
>
> Because you haven't answered them and this is your first answer.

It's hardly suprising that if nobody has the opportunity to answer, that
your question would go "unanswered". But then people have answered your
old tired ignorant bleating before, and it is simply a lie to say that
people have not answer to it, if only to say "you're an idiot."

Mark
>
>
>> DJT
>

Mark VandeWettering

unread,
Mar 23, 2003, 4:59:09 PM3/23/03
to
In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:
> AC <maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnb7q8ai.vg....@clausen.alberni.net>...
>> In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:
>> > TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<b5ht3...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> >> "On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:29:43 +0000 (UTC), in article
>> >> <20030322092903...@mb-cl.aol.com>, agel...@aol.com stated..."
>> >> >
>> >> >Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I've tried to trace it back through
>> >> >evoloution, and when I get to the invertebrates, I get stuck. I know it
>> >> >probably has something to do with single-celled animals, and mitosis. Someone
>> >> >please help. I can't sleep at night.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I wonder what the creationist answer is for this problem.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, don't tell me: "Goddiddit" That's the answer.
>> >
>> > Don't tell me, the evolutionist answer is "naturediddit." That's the
>> > answer.
>>
>> Nature builds stars, crystals and innumerable compounds. Do you disagree?
>> Are you reaching for Jo Jean's belief that God micromanages every
>> interaction in the Universe?
>
> Nobody has proved that Nature builds stars. This is clear in that if
> light takes billions of years to travel through space, it would be
> impossible to determine birth or origins. Death, maybe. Nobody has a
> video tape of a star being created, only a series of stills of which
> we are told what has occured. Which we do not know that occurred.

Golly. I'm waiting for that video of God creating the universe in six
days. It's hard to imagine how this level of ignorance and stupidity,
and yet not prove immediately fatal.

> You're right on the organizing techniques of crystals and some
> compounds. But since these are based on simple mechanics I have to
> disagree.

The same "simple mechanics" that allow your body to form.

> They are merely simple formations that occur naturally,

So are you.

> just as if one dropped a bunch of magnets they would all end up
> clinging to each other. And if each magnet had a similar shape, the
> out come of the cohesion would form that which is semi-predetermined.
> There is nothing in nature that indicates that chemicals will cohere
> to create life. That is a pipe-dream.
>
> The thing to do with pipe-dream's is to quit smokin'.

RED ALERT! IRONY-CORE OVERLOAD! RED-ALERT!

>> >> Why is the sky blue (rather than, for example, a nice magenta and
>> >> cerise paisley)? Why do we park on driveways and drive on parkways?
>> >> Why did the chicken cross the road? "Goddiddit"
>> >
>> > "Naturediddit."
>>
>> I can actually provide evidence of the existence of nature. Please provide
>> your evidence for your deity.
>
>
> Where evolutionists are not willing to admit is that they attribute
> powers to nature that do not exist.

Whereas creationists are not willing to admit that they attribute power
to a God which does not exist?

> This power is the invisible deity of evolutionists.

Odd that their deity is mocked, while yours is praised.

But of course they don't have a deity, they have a scientific theory which
explains the observed biological diversity.

Mark

Robin Levett

unread,
Mar 23, 2003, 7:08:47 PM3/23/03
to
"mel turner" <mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in
message news:b5j6al$uq3$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...

> In article
<3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>,
mc...@sunset.net
> wrote...
> >John Harshman <harshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
message
> >news:<3E7C59AB...@pacbell.net>...
> >> AGelbart wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'm not a creationist. I don't know where you get that
impression. I'm
> >>>asking an honest question. What is the scientific
answer for this
> >>>question?
> >>
> >>
> >> If the question is about eggs in general, there were
eggs several
> >> hundred million years before there were chickens.
> >>
> >> If the question is about chicken eggs specifically,
it's a matter of
> >> definition. First, is a chicken egg an egg laid by a
chicken, or an egg
> >> that a chicken hatches out of? Second, what's a
chicken? Chickens are a
> >> domesticated relative of the wild red jungle fowl.
>
> Or do the jungle fowl all count as "wild chickens"?
>

Hold on; don't you mean "feral chickens"?

<snip what doesn't provide the opportunity to make a poor
pun>


--
I don't trust camels - or anyone else that can go for a week
without a drink.
(Use rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net - deleting big blue -
for email)

AC

unread,
Mar 23, 2003, 9:50:33 PM3/23/03
to
In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:
> AC <maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnb7q8ai.vg....@clausen.alberni.net>...
>> In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:
>> > TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<b5ht3...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> >> "On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:29:43 +0000 (UTC), in article
>> >> <20030322092903...@mb-cl.aol.com>, agel...@aol.com stated..."
>> >> >
>> >> >Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I've tried to trace it back through
>> >> >evoloution, and when I get to the invertebrates, I get stuck. I know it
>> >> >probably has something to do with single-celled animals, and mitosis. Someone
>> >> >please help. I can't sleep at night.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I wonder what the creationist answer is for this problem.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, don't tell me: "Goddiddit" That's the answer.
>> >
>> > Don't tell me, the evolutionist answer is "naturediddit." That's the
>> > answer.
>>
>> Nature builds stars, crystals and innumerable compounds. Do you disagree?
>> Are you reaching for Jo Jean's belief that God micromanages every
>> interaction in the Universe?
>
> Nobody has proved that Nature builds stars.

So are you saying God does?

>This is clear in that if
> light takes billions of years to travel through space, it would be
> impossible to determine birth or origins.

How so? We've observed stars in every stage of evolution.

>Death, maybe. Nobody has a
> video tape of a star being created, only a series of stills of which
> we are told what has occured. Which we do not know that occurred.

Do you have an alternative explanation. Please provide it.

>
> You're right on the organizing techniques of crystals and some
> compounds.

What is your limit? Which compounds can and cannot be created by natural
means?

>But since these are based on simple mechanics I have to
> disagree.

Why couldn't early reproducing molecules also be based on simple mechanics?

> They are merely simple formations that occur naturally,
> just as if one dropped a bunch of magnets they would all end up
> clinging to each other.

Why should life be any different? It's all chemical processes, whether its
primitive self-replicating molecules or cedar trees or humans.

>And if each magnet had a similar shape, the
> out come of the cohesion would form that which is semi-predetermined.

I fail to see what this has to do with the topic, other than the fact that
there are features of nature which are sufficiently predictable. The
chemical reactions in living organisms can also be analyzed in this way.

> There is nothing in nature that indicates that chemicals will cohere
> to create life. That is a pipe-dream.

Why do you say this? Provide the evidence for this claim. You've already
admitted that natural processes can create things, so by what mechanisms is
life prevented from happening? Please be specific.

>
> The thing to do with pipe-dream's is to quit smokin'.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

>
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> Why is the sky blue (rather than, for example, a nice magenta and
>> >> cerise paisley)? Why do we park on driveways and drive on parkways?
>> >> Why did the chicken cross the road? "Goddiddit"
>> >
>> > "Naturediddit."
>>
>> I can actually provide evidence of the existence of nature. Please provide
>> your evidence for your deity.
>
>
> Where evolutionists are not willing to admit is that they attribute
> powers to nature that do not exist. This power is the invisible deity
> of evolutionists.

No mysterious powers. Just natural processes.

But I note you didn't answer the question. So I will repeat it.

What is your evidence for your deity? Please be specific.

Lane Lewis

unread,
Mar 24, 2003, 12:01:39 AM3/24/03
to

"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com...
snip
>
> Nobody has proved that Nature builds stars. This is clear in that if
> light takes billions of years to travel through space, it would be
> impossible to determine birth or origins. Death, maybe. Nobody has a
> video tape of a star being created, only a series of stills of which
> we are told what has occured. Which we do not know that occurred.
>

Actually still pictures have been telling the story of science since
they first appeared. Videos also help such as the first telling the
story of how a racehorse runs but stills are the mainstay of science. To
suggest as you have that a star forming in a picture is worthless to
scientist is just beyond any rational argument.


snip

Lane

Lane Lewis

unread,
Mar 24, 2003, 12:39:28 AM3/24/03
to

"Mitch A. Kaboola" <pasta....@bippity.boppity.boo> wrote in message
news:px3fa.15885$IM3....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...

Rhinoceros

Lane

Nick Keighley

unread,
Mar 24, 2003, 6:35:18 AM3/24/03
to
weat...@aol.com (Weatherfn) wrote in message news:<20030322193822...@mb-mv.aol.com>...

> If the chicken evolved from the wild red jungle fowl,

though it is by artificial rather than natural selection.


> [...] that fowl would develope


> an egg that, through evolution, would be a chicken. Thus the egg came
> before the chicken.

yes, but the chicks hatching out of this "chicken" egg would be pretty
indistinguishable from their parents. If the parents didn't look like
modern chickens then neither would their off spring.


--
Nick Keighley

Ferrous Patella

unread,
Mar 24, 2003, 11:26:01 AM3/24/03
to
news:slrnb7ssn2.13g...@clausen.alberni.net by AC
<maureen...@nospam.alberni.net>:

> In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy
> wrote:

[...]


>> The thing to do with pipe-dream's is to quit smokin'.
>
> Pot. Kettle. Black.

Only if it is stainless steel kettle.

--
Ferrous Patella

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not
only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public."
--Theodore Roosevelt
May 7, 1918

J McCoy

unread,
Mar 24, 2003, 2:59:37 PM3/24/03
to
mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote in message news:<b5j6al$uq3$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>...

> In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, mc...@sunset.net
> wrote...
> >John Harshman <harshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >news:<3E7C59AB...@pacbell.net>...
> >> AGelbart wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'm not a creationist. I don't know where you get that impression. I'm
> >>>asking an honest question. What is the scientific answer for this
> >>>question?
> >>
> >>
> >> If the question is about eggs in general, there were eggs several
> >> hundred million years before there were chickens.
> >>
> >> If the question is about chicken eggs specifically, it's a matter of
> >> definition. First, is a chicken egg an egg laid by a chicken, or an egg
> >> that a chicken hatches out of? Second, what's a chicken? Chickens are a
> >> domesticated relative of the wild red jungle fowl.
>
> Or do the jungle fowl all count as "wild chickens"?
>
> >> At what point along
> >> that process do we stop calling them red jungle fowl and start calling
> >> them chickens? Evolution makes many questions hard to answer, since
> >> populations are evolving gradually along a continuum. It's like asking
> >> where orange leaves off and red begins.
>
> >Yes, so what came first, the egg or whatever.
>
> Again:
> The common ancestors of all modern multicellular animals reproduced
> with sperms and egg cells

You mean the very first time lightning struck the primal sea, the cell
was born with sperm and egg cells all in one package so it could
reproduce from the start? As that what you're saying?


long before there were any birds. Reptiles
> laid shelled, yolky "birdlike" eggs long before one group of them
> became "birds".

So then, how did the reptiles become birds? Why did insects develop
wings too? Is that some coincidence in nature?


Birds laid bird eggs long before there were any
> chickens.
>
> If "chicken" here means a species like "Gallus gallus" or some other
> evolutionary lineage [like the genus Gallus or maybe even the
> Phasianidae], then "chickens" and "chicken eggs" arose gradually and
> concurrently. Neither came first.

How can chicken eggs arise "gradually"? Is that first there was a
non-protective thin membrane? And then because some of these broke
and killed the infants, and then nature said, "we gotta improve upon
this situation"? So the membrane told the other structures that they
needed to get some calcium and a new group of cell servers started
weaving their egg shell together?


>
> The first domesticated "chickens" might have been collected as eggs
> or caught as already-hatched birds, or something in-between [perhaps
> early people kept semi-wild "chickens" that were more or less free to
> go, while harvesting some of the eggs and the occasional bird]. Thus,
> "which came first?" is all pretty meaningless.

If the questions become answered.

J McCoy

Mark VandeWettering

unread,
Mar 24, 2003, 4:21:39 PM3/24/03
to
In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:

No, that isn't what he's saying.

> long before there were any birds. Reptiles
>> laid shelled, yolky "birdlike" eggs long before one group of them
>> became "birds".
>
> So then, how did the reptiles become birds?

Evolution.

> Why did insects develop
> wings too?

Evolution.

> Is that some coincidence in nature?

It's a coincidence that we call such differing structures as insect wings
and bird wings "wings".

>> Birds laid bird eggs long before there were any
>> chickens.
>>
>> If "chicken" here means a species like "Gallus gallus" or some other
>> evolutionary lineage [like the genus Gallus or maybe even the
>> Phasianidae], then "chickens" and "chicken eggs" arose gradually and
>> concurrently. Neither came first.
>
> How can chicken eggs arise "gradually"? Is that first there was a
> non-protective thin membrane? And then because some of these broke
> and killed the infants, and then nature said, "we gotta improve upon
> this situation"? So the membrane told the other structures that they
> needed to get some calcium and a new group of cell servers started
> weaving their egg shell together?

You really should have finished high school.

J McCoy

unread,
Mar 24, 2003, 6:07:55 PM3/24/03
to
AC <maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnb7ssn2.13g...@clausen.alberni.net>...

> In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:
> > AC <maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnb7q8ai.vg....@clausen.alberni.net>...
> >> In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:
> >> > TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<b5ht3...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> >> >> "On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:29:43 +0000 (UTC), in article
> >> >> <20030322092903...@mb-cl.aol.com>, agel...@aol.com stated..."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I've tried to trace it back through
> >> >> >evoloution, and when I get to the invertebrates, I get stuck. I know it
> >> >> >probably has something to do with single-celled animals, and mitosis. Someone
> >> >> >please help. I can't sleep at night.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I wonder what the creationist answer is for this problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh, don't tell me: "Goddiddit" That's the answer.
> >> >
> >> > Don't tell me, the evolutionist answer is "naturediddit." That's the
> >> > answer.
> >>
> >> Nature builds stars, crystals and innumerable compounds. Do you disagree?
> >> Are you reaching for Jo Jean's belief that God micromanages every
> >> interaction in the Universe?
> >
> > Nobody has proved that Nature builds stars.
>
> So are you saying God does?

I'm saying that an intelligent being did create stars and placed the
Earth just the right distance from the sun so that it could sustain
life.

>
> >This is clear in that if
> > light takes billions of years to travel through space, it would be
> > impossible to determine birth or origins.
>
> How so? We've observed stars in every stage of evolution.

Not so. All the pictures that have been released to the public merely
show, for instance, a star in some gas. Then we are told that it
hatched out of the gas. Do you believe? We're NEVER shown all the
so-called stages. That is left to imagination.


>
> >Death, maybe. Nobody has a
> > video tape of a star being created, only a series of stills of which
> > we are told what has occured. Which we do not know that occurred.
>
> Do you have an alternative explanation. Please provide it.
>
> >
> > You're right on the organizing techniques of crystals and some
> > compounds.
>
> What is your limit? Which compounds can and cannot be created by natural
> means?
>
> >But since these are based on simple mechanics I have to
> > disagree.
>
> Why couldn't early reproducing molecules also be based on simple mechanics?
>
> > They are merely simple formations that occur naturally,
> > just as if one dropped a bunch of magnets they would all end up
> > clinging to each other.
>
> Why should life be any different? It's all chemical processes, whether its
> primitive self-replicating molecules or cedar trees or humans.
>
> >And if each magnet had a similar shape, the
> > out come of the cohesion would form that which is semi-predetermined.
>
> I fail to see what this has to do with the topic, other than the fact that
> there are features of nature which are sufficiently predictable. The
> chemical reactions in living organisms can also be analyzed in this way.
>
> > There is nothing in nature that indicates that chemicals will cohere
> > to create life. That is a pipe-dream.
>
> Why do you say this?

I say that because man cannot even create life at this stage in the
game. Too complex.


Provide the evidence for this claim.

It is up to you to prove that the chemicals can come together and
koom-foom! create life. You cannot do it? Why is that?

You've already
> admitted that natural processes can create things, so by what mechanisms is
> life prevented from happening? Please be specific.

These are observable process that operate on simple principle. Little
grooves suck up water. This follows normal laws of science. Your idea
that life starts spontaneously is not scientific and cannot be
observed.

J McCoy

Greg

unread,
Mar 24, 2003, 6:16:20 PM3/24/03
to
mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>...
No, he isn't saying that at all. Cells were reproducing for a couple
of billion years when multicellular life forms developed. The earliest
multicellular creatures may have been colonies of single cells that
stayed together. A species was found that lives as individual cells
when food is plentiful but connects up with its sisters when food is
scarce. Some of the cells may have specialized in certain functions.
New entities of this sort could grow from individual cells. One
species prospered by supplying some cells with enough nutrients to be
able to divide into a complete colony. That is essentially what an egg
is, a single cell with its own food supply. This species evolved into
many different species, a few of which evolved into all the phyla in
the animal kingdom.

This is a possible scenario. The same scenario could be made for
plants and their seeds. There are other reasonable scenarios, as well.
Your lightning bolt scenario is a strawman and should not be used to
justify an ignorant position.

Protective shells developed in land animals to prevent the eggs from
drying out.


>
> long before there were any birds. Reptiles
> > laid shelled, yolky "birdlike" eggs long before one group of them
> > became "birds".
>
> So then, how did the reptiles become birds?

Some of the scales developed tendrils that served as insulation which
allowed them to live in cooler regions than their predators opening
many new niches. As some of them developed into predators due to the
lack of competition in the cooler climates, any creature that could
take advantage of a stiffer feather would prosper in new and old
niches.

> Why did insects develop
> wings too? Is that some coincidence in nature?
>

Yes, it is a coincidence. It is also a coincidence for bats,
squirrels, and pterosaurs, as well. Flight is a valuable survival
tactic. Most species of land animals and a few fish use it. Mammals
don't fly except for bats, and bats represent one quarter of all
mammal species.


>
> Birds laid bird eggs long before there were any
> > chickens.
> >
> > If "chicken" here means a species like "Gallus gallus" or some other
> > evolutionary lineage [like the genus Gallus or maybe even the
> > Phasianidae], then "chickens" and "chicken eggs" arose gradually and
> > concurrently. Neither came first.
>
> How can chicken eggs arise "gradually"? Is that first there was a
> non-protective thin membrane? And then because some of these broke
> and killed the infants, and then nature said, "we gotta improve upon
> this situation"? So the membrane told the other structures that they
> needed to get some calcium and a new group of cell servers started
> weaving their egg shell together?
>

The jungle fowl ancestor of chickens was not a chicken so it did not
lay chicken eggs. It laid jungle fowl eggs. As these jungle fowl
became domesticated, those jungle fowl hens that produced more eggs
had a few extra that didn't get eaten and they didn't get cooked
themselves. As they gradually became more chicken-like, their eggs
gradually became chicken eggs.

What you describe is probably how salamander-like animals became more
lizard-like, being less dependent on water. Of dourse it was a
strswman decision, but those salamanders that laid eggs with slightly
tougher shells could lay their eggs further up on the shore away from
the other amphibious creatures.


>
> >
> > The first domesticated "chickens" might have been collected as eggs
> > or caught as already-hatched birds, or something in-between [perhaps
> > early people kept semi-wild "chickens" that were more or less free to
> > go, while harvesting some of the eggs and the occasional bird]. Thus,
> > "which came first?" is all pretty meaningless.
>
> If the questions become answered.

No, it is meaningless whether those questions are answered or not
because it is just semantics. These questions of semantics are only
important to creationists as they need excuses to maintain their
ignorant position.


>
> J McCoy
>
> >
> > >J McCoy
> > >
> > >"No answer time" is the answer from the evolutionists.
> >
> > Wrong, as usual. Like 'em or not, there are clear answers.
> >
> > cheers

--
Greg

Forget the schools, invite me back to the churches.
Sincerely, God.

mel turner

unread,
Mar 24, 2003, 6:24:15 PM3/24/03
to
>mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote in message
news:<b5j6al$uq3$1
>@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>...
[snip]

>> >Yes, so what came first, the egg or whatever.
>>
>> Again:
>> The common ancestors of all modern multicellular animals reproduced
>> with sperms and egg cells
>
>You mean the very first time lightning struck the primal sea, the cell
>was born with sperm and egg cells all in one package so it could
>reproduce from the start? As that what you're saying?

Nope. Not saying that at all. I'm just saying that the Metazoa
are all oogamous, and therefore so was their last common ancestor.

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Animals&contgroup=Eukaryotes

> long before there were any birds. Reptiles
>> laid shelled, yolky "birdlike" eggs long before one group of them
>> became "birds".
>
>So then, how did the reptiles become birds?

Gradually, by evolution. We now have some very nice fossils of
various of the "half-way, in-between" steps between modern birds
and their nonbird dinosaur ancestors. We know that feathers
evolved long before bird ancestors looked much like modern
birds.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/jdp.htm#archie
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
http://dinosauricon.com/taxa/avialae.html

>Why did insects develop
>wings too?

Why? It's pretty easy to see that a capacity for flight can often be
advantageous in many insects. How? By different gradual steps, from
their own earlier nonflying insect ancestors.

Insects flew a very long time before any birds did [or any pterosaurs
or bats]

>Is that some coincidence in nature?

It's not a coincidence. Both birds and insects [and their respective
ancestors] live in an environment with air that is capable of
supporting gliding and flying animals. The fact that various groups
independently gave rise to lineages capable of gliding or powered
flight is no more a concidence than the fact that various groups of
animals contain members that are able to swim.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/enter.html

>> Birds laid bird eggs long before there were any
>> chickens.
>>
>> If "chicken" here means a species like "Gallus gallus" or some other
>> evolutionary lineage [like the genus Gallus or maybe even the
>> Phasianidae], then "chickens" and "chicken eggs" arose gradually and
>> concurrently. Neither came first.
>
>How can chicken eggs arise "gradually"?

By evolution. The "gradually" bit refers specifically to the origin of
the chicken species from its immediate ancestors [which were very
chickenlike birds that already laid very chickenlike eggs]. The
speciation event would involve whole breeding populations gradually
changing over many generations, so there would never be any individual
"first chicken" or any "first chicken egg".

But if "first chicken" really means the first "chickens" ever kept
and bred by people, then one might speculate about whether they
were collected as eggs or caught as already-hatched birds.

>Is that first there was a
>non-protective thin membrane? And then because some of these broke
>and killed the infants, and then nature said, "we gotta improve upon
>this situation"? So the membrane told the other structures that they
>needed to get some calcium and a new group of cell servers started
>weaving their egg shell together?

Nope. Read again. Reptiles laid shelled yolky eggs long before there
were any birds. If you want to make the "chicken/egg" question become
a new one about the evolutionary origin of the amniote egg in the
ancestors of reptiles [and birds], fine, but it's clearly a different
question.

Basically, the early amniotes modified some parts that already existed
in shell-less fish and amphibian eggs, and added some bits of their
own. The transition would undoubtedly have been gradual,and there's no
known reason it couldn't have happened in small steps.. There are
numerous modern amphibians that lay relatively large eggs in damp places
on land, and skip an aquatic larval stage [they hatch as miniatures of
the adults], and there are some very small amniotes that lay
similar-sized eggs in similarly moist places.

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Amniota&contgroup=Terrestrial_Vertebrates
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Diapsida&contgroup=Amniota
http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~dunbrack/2210amniotes.html

>> The first domesticated "chickens" might have been collected as eggs
>> or caught as already-hatched birds, or something in-between [perhaps
>> early people kept semi-wild "chickens" that were more or less free to
>> go, while harvesting some of the eggs and the occasional bird]. Thus,
>> "which came first?" is all pretty meaningless.
>
>If the questions become answered.

What questions? New ones, about amniote eggs?

AC

unread,
Mar 24, 2003, 6:24:13 PM3/24/03
to
In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:
> AC <maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnb7ssn2.13g...@clausen.alberni.net>...
>> In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:
>> > AC <maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnb7q8ai.vg....@clausen.alberni.net>...
>> >> In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:
>> >> > TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<b5ht3...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> >> >> "On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:29:43 +0000 (UTC), in article
>> >> >> <20030322092903...@mb-cl.aol.com>, agel...@aol.com stated..."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I've tried to trace it back through
>> >> >> >evoloution, and when I get to the invertebrates, I get stuck. I know it
>> >> >> >probably has something to do with single-celled animals, and mitosis. Someone
>> >> >> >please help. I can't sleep at night.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I wonder what the creationist answer is for this problem.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Oh, don't tell me: "Goddiddit" That's the answer.
>> >> >
>> >> > Don't tell me, the evolutionist answer is "naturediddit." That's the
>> >> > answer.
>> >>
>> >> Nature builds stars, crystals and innumerable compounds. Do you disagree?
>> >> Are you reaching for Jo Jean's belief that God micromanages every
>> >> interaction in the Universe?
>> >
>> > Nobody has proved that Nature builds stars.
>>
>> So are you saying God does?
>
> I'm saying that an intelligent being did create stars and placed the
> Earth just the right distance from the sun so that it could sustain
> life.

And your evidence is...?

>
>>
>> >This is clear in that if
>> > light takes billions of years to travel through space, it would be
>> > impossible to determine birth or origins.
>>
>> How so? We've observed stars in every stage of evolution.
>
> Not so. All the pictures that have been released to the public merely
> show, for instance, a star in some gas.

"Released to the public". Now there's a pregnant phrase. Care to explain
what you mean?

> Then we are told that it
> hatched out of the gas. Do you believe?

Do I believe what? That natural processes due to gravitational attraction
can lead to the condensation of matter to sufficient densities to create a
sustained fusion reactoin? Yes. Do you have any evidence that this would
nto occur?

>We're NEVER shown all the
> so-called stages. That is left to imagination.

Are you saying that astronomers are intentionally lying? Could you please
provide the evidence for this? Actually, I pretty much demand that you
provide the evidence for this claim.

This sounds like a god of the gaps argument to me. But we have created
virii. What about proteinoid microspheres? Would you accept anything in a
lab, and why is creation of life in a lab necessarry anyways?

>
>
> Provide the evidence for this claim.

What claim?

>
> It is up to you to prove that the chemicals can come together and
> koom-foom! create life. You cannot do it? Why is that?

Mainly because we have enough laboratory evidence to show how such events
could occur. But abiogenesis theory isn't necessary for evolutionary
theory, anyways.

>
> You've already
>> admitted that natural processes can create things, so by what mechanisms is
>> life prevented from happening? Please be specific.
>
> These are observable process that operate on simple principle. Little
> grooves suck up water. This follows normal laws of science. Your idea
> that life starts spontaneously is not scientific and cannot be
> observed.

You should say "hasn't been observed yet". Just because we have yet to
stumble across abiogenesis doesn't mean it didn't happen, and it is not
necessary to have a theory of abiogenesis for evolution. Maybe God made the
first organism. I can't say one way or the other. But I cannot dismiss the
possibility, especially with the lab work to date, that self-replicating
molecules were not the precursors to life.

<snip>

>> But I note you didn't answer the question. So I will repeat it.
>>
>> What is your evidence for your deity? Please be specific.
>

You still haven't answered the question, Mr. McCoy.

Vicky LaDoucer

unread,
Mar 24, 2003, 10:06:12 PM3/24/03
to
Which came first? The dinosaur or the bird? Perhaps the dinosaurs lost
their feathers through evolution. Maybe all (or nearly all) dinosaurs
were feathered but the feathers just haven't preserved in most dinosaur
fossils.

J McCoy

unread,
Mar 25, 2003, 12:27:56 AM3/25/03
to
Mark VandeWettering <wett...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<slrnb7uto7.1...@keck.vandewettering.net>...

Then what was he saying, Mark?

>
> > long before there were any birds. Reptiles
> >> laid shelled, yolky "birdlike" eggs long before one group of them
> >> became "birds".
> >
> > So then, how did the reptiles become birds?
>
> Evolution.

Care to elaborate?

> > Why did insects develop
> > wings too?
>
> Evolution.

Care to elaborate?

>
> > Is that some coincidence in nature?
>
> It's a coincidence that we call such differing structures as insect wings
> and bird wings "wings".

Both on back, both allow flight. So why not call them wings? Planes
have wings. Do you not understand?


>
> >> Birds laid bird eggs long before there were any
> >> chickens.
> >>
> >> If "chicken" here means a species like "Gallus gallus" or some other
> >> evolutionary lineage [like the genus Gallus or maybe even the
> >> Phasianidae], then "chickens" and "chicken eggs" arose gradually and
> >> concurrently. Neither came first.
> >
> > How can chicken eggs arise "gradually"? Is that first there was a
> > non-protective thin membrane? And then because some of these broke
> > and killed the infants, and then nature said, "we gotta improve upon
> > this situation"? So the membrane told the other structures that they
> > needed to get some calcium and a new group of cell servers started
> > weaving their egg shell together?
>
> You really should have finished high school.

Care to explain how the egg shell came to be?

J McCoy

unread,
Mar 25, 2003, 12:37:46 AM3/25/03
to
ggwi...@aol.com (Greg) wrote in message news:<fa25fec1.03032...@posting.google.com>...


How did you arrive at this figure of "a couple of billion years"?


The earliest
> multicellular creatures may have been colonies of single cells that
> stayed together.

What significance is this point?


A species was found that lives as individual cells
> when food is plentiful but connects up with its sisters when food is
> scarce. Some of the cells may have specialized in certain functions.
> New entities of this sort could grow from individual cells. One
> species prospered by supplying some cells with enough nutrients to be
> able to divide into a complete colony. That is essentially what an egg
> is, a single cell with its own food supply. This species evolved into
> many different species, a few of which evolved into all the phyla in
> the animal kingdom.


Interesting piece of fiction there. How about how the first cell came
to be? And why would a cell decide to help out his fellow other
cells? Why would they want to be specialized? How did this occur?

>
> This is a possible scenario. The same scenario could be made for
> plants and their seeds. There are other reasonable scenarios, as well.
> Your lightning bolt scenario is a strawman and should not be used to
> justify an ignorant position.

No, it's not a strawman. Electrical current has been used in
experiments.


>
> Protective shells developed in land animals to prevent the eggs from
> drying out.

So the egg said, I don't want to dry out and decided to get some
calcium to make a shell?


> >
> > long before there were any birds. Reptiles
> > > laid shelled, yolky "birdlike" eggs long before one group of them
> > > became "birds".
> >
> > So then, how did the reptiles become birds?
>
> Some of the scales developed tendrils that served as insulation

What cause the scales to develop tendrils?


which
> allowed them to live in cooler regions than their predators opening
> many new niches. As some of them developed into predators due to the
> lack of competition in the cooler climates, any creature that could
> take advantage of a stiffer feather would prosper in new and old
> niches.
>
> > Why did insects develop
> > wings too? Is that some coincidence in nature?
> >
> Yes, it is a coincidence. It is also a coincidence for bats,
> squirrels, and pterosaurs, as well. Flight is a valuable survival
> tactic. Most species of land animals and a few fish use it. Mammals
> don't fly except for bats, and bats represent one quarter of all
> mammal species.

Do you think that before the wings were wings, they were just arms?
And if so, why did a membrane start developing inbetween the armpits?
How did this occur?


> >
> > Birds laid bird eggs long before there were any
> > > chickens.
> > >
> > > If "chicken" here means a species like "Gallus gallus" or some other
> > > evolutionary lineage [like the genus Gallus or maybe even the
> > > Phasianidae], then "chickens" and "chicken eggs" arose gradually and
> > > concurrently. Neither came first.
> >
> > How can chicken eggs arise "gradually"? Is that first there was a
> > non-protective thin membrane? And then because some of these broke
> > and killed the infants, and then nature said, "we gotta improve upon
> > this situation"? So the membrane told the other structures that they
> > needed to get some calcium and a new group of cell servers started
> > weaving their egg shell together?
> >
> The jungle fowl ancestor of chickens was not a chicken so it did not
> lay chicken eggs. It laid jungle fowl eggs. As these jungle fowl
> became domesticated, those jungle fowl hens that produced more eggs
> had a few extra that didn't get eaten and they didn't get cooked
> themselves. As they gradually became more chicken-like, their eggs
> gradually became chicken eggs.

So if we took in some pitbulls they will become something different
than they are these days?

J McCoy

Fiction is stranger than truth.

Mark VandeWettering

unread,
Mar 25, 2003, 12:48:30 AM3/25/03
to

He meant that the common ancestors to all modern multicelluar animals
reproduced with sperms and egg cells. That is what he said, presumably
that is what he meant. He didn't say anything about lightning. He
didn't mention primal seas. That you can't resolve the question "what
language did the first frenchman speak?" doesn't really deny that
frenchman exist, does it?

>> > long before there were any birds. Reptiles
>> >> laid shelled, yolky "birdlike" eggs long before one group of them
>> >> became "birds".
>> >
>> > So then, how did the reptiles become birds?
>>
>> Evolution.
>
> Care to elaborate?

There are books on such subjects. Perhaps you could try to read one and
retain more information than just what color the cover was.

>> > Why did insects develop
>> > wings too?
>>
>> Evolution.
>
> Care to elaborate?
>
>>
>> > Is that some coincidence in nature?
>>
>> It's a coincidence that we call such differing structures as insect wings
>> and bird wings "wings".
>
> Both on back, both allow flight. So why not call them wings?

Structurally they are quite different, and arise from different evolutionary
adaptations. What we can things is different than what things are, and it
is a mistake to think that what we choose to name something necessarily tells
us something useful about its nature.

Keep going down that path, and you'll think that rabbits chew their cud.

> Planes have wings. Do you not understand?

Do you not understand that insect wings, bird wings, and plane wings are
different?

I'm sorry, you are a creationist: you probably think they are all part of the
same created "kind". Consider the question rhetorical.

>>
>> >> Birds laid bird eggs long before there were any
>> >> chickens.
>> >>
>> >> If "chicken" here means a species like "Gallus gallus" or some other
>> >> evolutionary lineage [like the genus Gallus or maybe even the
>> >> Phasianidae], then "chickens" and "chicken eggs" arose gradually and
>> >> concurrently. Neither came first.
>> >
>> > How can chicken eggs arise "gradually"? Is that first there was a
>> > non-protective thin membrane? And then because some of these broke
>> > and killed the infants, and then nature said, "we gotta improve upon
>> > this situation"? So the membrane told the other structures that they
>> > needed to get some calcium and a new group of cell servers started
>> > weaving their egg shell together?
>>
>> You really should have finished high school.
>
> Care to explain how the egg shell came to be?

Irrelevant to your original question, in that it is obvious that hard shelled
eggs predate chickens.

Mark

John Wilkins

unread,
Mar 25, 2003, 1:26:03 AM3/25/03
to
J McCoy <mc...@sunset.net> wrote:

> > The jungle fowl ancestor of chickens was not a chicken so it did not
> > lay chicken eggs. It laid jungle fowl eggs. As these jungle fowl
> > became domesticated, those jungle fowl hens that produced more eggs
> > had a few extra that didn't get eaten and they didn't get cooked
> > themselves. As they gradually became more chicken-like, their eggs
> > gradually became chicken eggs.
>
> So if we took in some pitbulls they will become something different
> than they are these days?

They already are. Once they were wolves...
--
John Wilkins
B'dies, Brutius

J McCoy

unread,
Mar 25, 2003, 1:47:09 AM3/25/03
to
AC <maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnb7q8ai.vg....@clausen.alberni.net>...

> In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:
> > TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<b5ht3...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> >> "On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:29:43 +0000 (UTC), in article
> >> <20030322092903...@mb-cl.aol.com>, agel...@aol.com stated..."
> >> >
> >> >Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I've tried to trace it back through
> >> >evoloution, and when I get to the invertebrates, I get stuck. I know it
> >> >probably has something to do with single-celled animals, and mitosis. Someone
> >> >please help. I can't sleep at night.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I wonder what the creationist answer is for this problem.
> >>
> >> Oh, don't tell me: "Goddiddit" That's the answer.
> >
> > Don't tell me, the evolutionist answer is "naturediddit." That's the
> > answer.
>
> Nature builds stars, crystals and innumerable compounds.

Nature builds crystals. That has been observed. Now this exactly works
is not known. But it has to do with the structure of the individual
components that make up crystals and how they mind. There is nothing
in nature that has structural components that naturally link up to
form life. That's your fantasy. Do you sometimes stretch out your
hands above your head and try to grasp things that aren't there?


Do you disagree?
> Are you reaching for Jo Jean's belief that God micromanages every
> interaction in the Universe?
>
> >
> >

> >> Why is the sky blue (rather than, for example, a nice magenta and
> >> cerise paisley)? Why do we park on driveways and drive on parkways?
> >> Why did the chicken cross the road? "Goddiddit"
> >
> > "Naturediddit."
>
> I can actually provide evidence of the existence of nature. Please provide
> your evidence for your deity.

Yes, there is reality. But the superpowers that you ascribe to nature
is perhaps "intangible"? Please demonstate these powers and prove
they exist.



> >
> >>
> >> Tom S.
> >>
> >> P.S. Oh, by the way, if you've traced the history of life back far
> >> enough, you've probably discovered that there were eggs before there
> >> were chickens, before there were birds, before there were vertebrates.
> >> P.P.S. ObLargeMouthBass: If you're a troll, don't feel that you're
> >> being so original. Real creationists have asked this question.
> >
> > Funny, an honest question that turns into a ridicule romp against the
> > opposing theory.
>
> There is no opposing theory.

Only the "naturediddit" theory exists?

>
> >That is to say that if the evolutionist makes fun of
> > the Creationist point of view,
> > with simplistic "goddiddit" cat calls,
> > then that would be enough to cause someone to believe in the
> > evolutionary idea.
>
> No, we just get tired of repeating ourselves to the perpetually ignorant.
> And of course, to liars like yourself.

Naturediddit?

> >
> > Let's see, one day an egg popped up on the seashore.
> >
> > Can't explain it. Thought you couldn't.
>
> That's not evolution, and you know it Mr. McCoy. Why are you lying? Do
> you think your deity will reward your deceit?


What is deceitful is this power that you believe nature has. I haven't
seen it.

J McCoy

catshark

unread,
Mar 25, 2003, 6:43:00 AM3/25/03
to
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 06:47:09 +0000 (UTC), mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy)
wrote:

>AC <maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnb7q8ai.vg....@clausen.alberni.net>...
>> In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:
>> > TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<b5ht3...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> >> "On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:29:43 +0000 (UTC), in article
>> >> <20030322092903...@mb-cl.aol.com>, agel...@aol.com stated..."
>> >> >
>> >> >Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I've tried to trace it back through
>> >> >evoloution, and when I get to the invertebrates, I get stuck. I know it
>> >> >probably has something to do with single-celled animals, and mitosis. Someone
>> >> >please help. I can't sleep at night.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I wonder what the creationist answer is for this problem.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, don't tell me: "Goddiddit" That's the answer.
>> >
>> > Don't tell me, the evolutionist answer is "naturediddit." That's the
>> > answer.
>>
>> Nature builds stars, crystals and innumerable compounds.
>
>Nature builds crystals. That has been observed. Now this exactly works
>is not known. But it has to do with the structure of the individual
>components that make up crystals and how they mind.

Well, *that* neatly sums up your knowledge of science . . .

>There is nothing
>in nature that has structural components that naturally link up to
>form life. That's your fantasy. Do you sometimes stretch out your
>hands above your head and try to grasp things that aren't there?

Maybe you should just stretch out your hands and try to find your
head.

[ . . . ]

---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

Stupidity, if left untreated, is self-correcting.

- Robert Heinlein -

Greg

unread,
Mar 25, 2003, 7:03:45 AM3/25/03
to
mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>...
> AC <maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnb7q8ai.vg....@clausen.alberni.net>...
> > In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:
> > > TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<b5ht3...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > >> "On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:29:43 +0000 (UTC), in article
> > >> <20030322092903...@mb-cl.aol.com>, agel...@aol.com stated..."
> > >> >
> > >> >Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I've tried to trace it back through
> > >> >evoloution, and when I get to the invertebrates, I get stuck. I know it
> > >> >probably has something to do with single-celled animals, and mitosis. Someone
> > >> >please help. I can't sleep at night.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> I wonder what the creationist answer is for this problem.
> > >>
> > >> Oh, don't tell me: "Goddiddit" That's the answer.
> > >
> > > Don't tell me, the evolutionist answer is "naturediddit." That's the
> > > answer.
> >
> > Nature builds stars, crystals and innumerable compounds.
>
> Nature builds crystals. That has been observed. Now this exactly works
> is not known. But it has to do with the structure of the individual
> components that make up crystals and how they mind.

It is possible to study X-ray refraction of crystals and work back to
the shape of the molecule that forms the crystal. Crystallization
seems to be better understood than you think.

> There is nothing
> in nature that has structural components that naturally link up to
> form life. That's your fantasy. Do you sometimes stretch out your
> hands above your head and try to grasp things that aren't there?
>

There is nothing that prevents a molecule from forming that can
reproduce itself. Then you have a run-away positive feedback loop.
When the raw materials become scarce, more efficient variants would
prosper. It doesn't happen often but if it happens a second time, the
new version is simply consumed by its more efficient predecessor.


>
> Do you disagree?
> > Are you reaching for Jo Jean's belief that God micromanages every
> > interaction in the Universe?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >> Why is the sky blue (rather than, for example, a nice magenta and
> > >> cerise paisley)? Why do we park on driveways and drive on parkways?
> > >> Why did the chicken cross the road? "Goddiddit"
> > >
> > > "Naturediddit."
> >
> > I can actually provide evidence of the existence of nature. Please provide
> > your evidence for your deity.
>
> Yes, there is reality. But the superpowers that you ascribe to nature
> is perhaps "intangible"? Please demonstate these powers and prove
> they exist.
>

AC doesn't ascibe to superpowers of nature. Just physics.


>
>
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Tom S.
> > >>
> > >> P.S. Oh, by the way, if you've traced the history of life back far
> > >> enough, you've probably discovered that there were eggs before there
> > >> were chickens, before there were birds, before there were vertebrates.
> > >> P.P.S. ObLargeMouthBass: If you're a troll, don't feel that you're
> > >> being so original. Real creationists have asked this question.
> > >
> > > Funny, an honest question that turns into a ridicule romp against the
> > > opposing theory.
> >
> > There is no opposing theory.
>
> Only the "naturediddit" theory exists?
>

Only the "naturediddit" theory explains the evidence.


> >
> > >That is to say that if the evolutionist makes fun of
> > > the Creationist point of view,
> > > with simplistic "goddiddit" cat calls,
> > > then that would be enough to cause someone to believe in the
> > > evolutionary idea.
> >
> > No, we just get tired of repeating ourselves to the perpetually ignorant.
> > And of course, to liars like yourself.
>
> Naturediddit?
>

Only the "naturediddit" theory explains the evidence.


> > >
> > > Let's see, one day an egg popped up on the seashore.
> > >
> > > Can't explain it. Thought you couldn't.
> >
> > That's not evolution, and you know it Mr. McCoy. Why are you lying? Do
> > you think your deity will reward your deceit?
>
>
> What is deceitful is this power that you believe nature has. I haven't
> seen it.

No, you said that he believed in some intangible power. He didn't.
>
> J McCoy
--
Greg

Have you ever gazed at the vastness of space and
considered how insignificant we really are?
Me neither.

Dick C

unread,
Mar 25, 2003, 9:43:30 AM3/25/03
to
Lado...@webtv.net (Vicky LaDoucer) wrote in news:12087-3E7FC7C4-
9...@storefull-2254.public.lawson.webtv.net:

> Which came first? The dinosaur or the bird?

Dinosaurs, since birds descended from theropod dinosaurs.

Perhaps the dinosaurs lost
> their feathers through evolution. Maybe all (or nearly all) dinosaurs
> were feathered but the feathers just haven't preserved in most dinosaur
> fossils.

Possibly. Or, as is most likely, some were feathered, some not. Some
lines seem to have been feathered. Others possibly were not.

>

--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: crav...@msn.com

John Harshman

unread,
Mar 25, 2003, 11:00:21 AM3/25/03
to

Vicky LaDoucer wrote:


Possible. Certainly there were a lot of feathered dinosaurs whose
feathers were not preserved. For that matter, there are a lot of bird
fossils whose feathers were not preserved. But this becomes increasingly
unlikely as you go backwards from Archaeopteryx. I would be very
surprised if Eoraptor, Brachiosaurus, and Triceratops had flying
ancestors. But it's not completely impossible, given the poor state of
the fossil record.

Ferrous Patella

unread,
Mar 25, 2003, 11:22:24 AM3/25/03
to
news:1fsdzj3.p8bhts175h2exN%wil...@wehi.edu.au by wil...@wehi.edu.au
(John Wilkins):

Try again. Pitbulls are wolves (Canis lupis mumble).

Maybe you mean they evolved from Canis familiaris in the 1980's to being
Canis lupis familiaris
today.


--
Ferrous Patella

"You mean I'm a wolf now? Cool! Grrr?"
--Ernie the Greyhound

Ferrous Patella

unread,
Mar 25, 2003, 11:40:20 AM3/25/03
to
news:3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com by mc...@sunset.net (J
McCoy):

> Both on back, both allow flight. So why not call them wings? Planes
> have wings. Do you not understand?

Some planes have wings on their belly. Should those be called something
else?

Helicopters have things on their back that allow flight. Should rotors be
called wings?

Dirigibles have a big of helium (or once hydrogen) on their back that
allow flight. Should they be called wings.

Your criteria seem to fail. What were you saying about understanding?

Mark VandeWettering

unread,
Mar 25, 2003, 12:15:28 PM3/25/03
to
In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:

>> Nature builds stars, crystals and innumerable compounds.
>
> Nature builds crystals. That has been observed. Now this exactly works
> is not known.

Your personal ignorance is not shared by the rest of the world.

> But it has to do with the structure of the individual
> components that make up crystals and how they mind.

How "they mind"? Pathetic fallacy.

> There is nothing in nature that has structural components that
> naturally link up to form life.

Perhaps you could tell us what mystical supernatural forces are responsible?

> That's your fantasy. Do you sometimes stretch out your
> hands above your head and try to grasp things that aren't there?

In your case, I think you are stretching to reach your backside which is
probably, given the contortions you go to, still over your head.

Mark

AC

unread,
Mar 25, 2003, 12:43:59 PM3/25/03
to
In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:
> AC <maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnb7q8ai.vg....@clausen.alberni.net>...
>> In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:
>> > TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<b5ht3...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> >> "On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:29:43 +0000 (UTC), in article
>> >> <20030322092903...@mb-cl.aol.com>, agel...@aol.com stated..."
>> >> >
>> >> >Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I've tried to trace it back through
>> >> >evoloution, and when I get to the invertebrates, I get stuck. I know it
>> >> >probably has something to do with single-celled animals, and mitosis. Someone
>> >> >please help. I can't sleep at night.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I wonder what the creationist answer is for this problem.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, don't tell me: "Goddiddit" That's the answer.
>> >
>> > Don't tell me, the evolutionist answer is "naturediddit." That's the
>> > answer.
>>
>> Nature builds stars, crystals and innumerable compounds.
>
> Nature builds crystals. That has been observed. Now this exactly works
> is not known.

Crystal formation is well understood. Perhaps your orange science book is
too old, and this accounts for it.

>But it has to do with the structure of the individual
> components that make up crystals and how they mind. There is nothing
> in nature that has structural components that naturally link up to
> form life.

And your evidence for this statement is...?

> That's your fantasy. Do you sometimes stretch out your
> hands above your head and try to grasp things that aren't there?

Cute rhetoric, but it doesn't really say very much.

>
>
> Do you disagree?
>> Are you reaching for Jo Jean's belief that God micromanages every
>> interaction in the Universe?
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> Why is the sky blue (rather than, for example, a nice magenta and
>> >> cerise paisley)? Why do we park on driveways and drive on parkways?
>> >> Why did the chicken cross the road? "Goddiddit"
>> >
>> > "Naturediddit."
>>
>> I can actually provide evidence of the existence of nature. Please provide
>> your evidence for your deity.
>
> Yes, there is reality. But the superpowers that you ascribe to nature
> is perhaps "intangible"? Please demonstate these powers and prove
> they exist.

What super powers? I'm talking about chemistry and physics. There's no
more need for super powers in life than there is in mixing baking soda and
water.

>
>
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Tom S.
>> >>
>> >> P.S. Oh, by the way, if you've traced the history of life back far
>> >> enough, you've probably discovered that there were eggs before there
>> >> were chickens, before there were birds, before there were vertebrates.
>> >> P.P.S. ObLargeMouthBass: If you're a troll, don't feel that you're
>> >> being so original. Real creationists have asked this question.
>> >
>> > Funny, an honest question that turns into a ridicule romp against the
>> > opposing theory.
>>
>> There is no opposing theory.
>
> Only the "naturediddit" theory exists?

I suppose it depends on what you call a "theory". Let me be more specific.
There is no opposing "scientific" theory. There are plenty of theories. In
fact, most peoples, at one time or another, have created or adopted various
myths to explain the universe. But none of these are scientific.

>
>>
>> >That is to say that if the evolutionist makes fun of
>> > the Creationist point of view,
>> > with simplistic "goddiddit" cat calls,
>> > then that would be enough to cause someone to believe in the
>> > evolutionary idea.
>>
>> No, we just get tired of repeating ourselves to the perpetually ignorant.
>> And of course, to liars like yourself.
>
> Naturediddit?

Yes, natural processes produced life and are responsible for its evolution
over the last three billion years. If you have evidence of something or
someone else responsible, then by all means present it. Arguments from
incredulity are not evidence, however. This seems to be the basic notion
behind your new slogan "naturedidit".

>
>> >
>> > Let's see, one day an egg popped up on the seashore.
>> >
>> > Can't explain it. Thought you couldn't.
>>
>> That's not evolution, and you know it Mr. McCoy. Why are you lying? Do
>> you think your deity will reward your deceit?
>
>
> What is deceitful is this power that you believe nature has. I haven't
> seen it.

You admit it can do all sorts of interesting things. It seems that you
merely suffer from a severe lack of appreciation for the natural world.

J McCoy

unread,
Mar 25, 2003, 12:59:29 PM3/25/03