Quote:

---

zZZz said:
I was high today and out of no where started thinking about a question most of us have heard in the past.  "which came first?, the chicken? or the egg?" so I started meditating on it for a while and found that it's actually a very interesting and wise question. I tried not to get science involved too much with this question. I was trying to picture it as if it were asked to an average farmer who grew up knowing that eggs come from chickens, and chickens come from eggs. If you were to ask him this question I'm guessing his awnser will mostly likely be 'the egg', but what if you pointed to one of his chickens and asked him where that chicken came from? He would reply that it came from an egg. If you asked him where that egg came from he would say that it came from a chicken. This would go on and on until you find that it is actually a never ending loop. I don't really remember how I got my answer but I decided that it was neither the egg nor the chicken. They both got here at the same time. When the egg got here the chicken also came, if the chicken came first, the egg most likely came along. I thought the same could be said, not just about eggs and chickens but, about all life forms. When the very first spark of life was lit, at that exact moment ALL of life, up until now, was born. In a very deep level, we might all have the same birthday.

Well, thats as far as i could go with that question, maybe if I laid off the weed for awhile I'd be able to have a clearer answer. Anyway there is a lesson in this question and I encourage others to think about it and see what answers you get. I would love to hear your responses.

Wow this took me like 2 hours to write, no joke...

---

Quote:

---

zZZz said:
Yea you should smoke some weed, that's probably the only way you'll understand it.

---

Quote:

---

zZZz said:
I was high today and out of no where started thinking about a question most of us have heard in the past.  "which came first?, the chicken? or the egg?" so I started meditating on it for a while and found that it's actually a very interesting and wise question. I tried not to get science involved too much with this question. I was trying to picture it as if it were asked to an average farmer who grew up knowing that eggs come from chickens, and chickens come from eggs. If you were to ask him this question I'm guessing his awnser will mostly likely be 'the egg', but what if you pointed to one of his chickens and asked him where that chicken came from? He would reply that it came from an egg. If you asked him where that egg came from he would say that it came from a chicken. This would go on and on until you find that it is actually a never ending loop. I don't really remember how I got my answer but I decided that it was neither the egg nor the chicken. They both got here at the same time. When the egg got here the chicken also came, if the chicken came first, the egg most likely came along. I thought the same could be said, not just about eggs and chickens but, about all life forms. When the very first spark of life was lit, at that exact moment ALL of life, up until now, was born. In a very deep level, we might all have the same birthday.

Well, thats as far as i could go with that question, maybe if I laid off the weed for awhile I'd be able to have a clearer answer. Anyway there is a lesson in this question and I encourage others to think about it and see what answers you get. I would love to hear your responses.

Wow this took me like 2 hours to write, no joke...

---

If this, whatever you call it,  took you two hours then don't let the gov't anti pot propaganda machine get wind of this. They might make the stuff illegal.

Quote:

---

deCypher said:
It depends on when the first mutation occurred that formed the chicken from its proto-chicken ancestor.  I would guess this happened in the proto-chicken as it was forming the egg, so I'd say the egg came first, then the chicken.

---

Quote:

---

DieCommie said:

Quote:

---

deCypher said:
It depends on when the first mutation occurred that formed the chicken from its proto-chicken ancestor.  I would guess this happened in the proto-chicken as it was forming the egg, so I'd say the egg came first, then the chicken.

---

Here you are defining an egg type as what comes out of it rather than what it came out of.  The definition could go the other way.  That is, what type of egg you have could be defined by the animal it came out of rather the the animal that will come out of it.  In that case the proto-chicken would lay a proto-chicken egg and out of that egg comes a chicken.

---

Haha nice,

to further muddy the waters,

might depend on a number of mutations over a long period of time, where one or several mutations is not enough to move the chicken species away from the proto-chicken species enough so that they could not breed.



Proto-chicken did it taste like chicken?

Quote:

---

iThink said:
It is obviously the egg.

---

Quote:

---

Kinko said:
egg was first
evoluti0on and common sense agree with me.

---

Got there before me.

Oh wow, lotsa people got there before me.

Quote:

---

falcon said:

Quote:

---

iThink said:
It is obviously the egg.

---

To you, not to me.

---

Quote:

---

Tom Devitt and a map showing the range of Ensatina eschscholtzii in California. The colors correspond to the different subspecies.
If you've skimmed a high school biology textbook, you've probably seen the picture: multicolored salamanders meander around California, displaying subtle shifts in appearance as they circle its Central Valley. This is Ensatina eschscholtzii, and it's so well known because it is a living example of speciation in action. Adjacent populations of the salamander look similar and mate with one another — but where the two ends of the loop overlap in Southern California, the two populations look quite different and behave as distinct species. The idea is that this continuum of salamanders — called a ring species — represents the evolutionary history of the lineage as it split into two.

---

Quote:

---

falcon said:
Your empathy is awesome.

Check out ring species, it has made it much less obvious to me.
The support for evolution illustrated by speciation as demonstrated by the study of Ensatina eschscholtzii may be enlightening, maybe not.

Quote:

---

Tom Devitt and a map showing the range of Ensatina eschscholtzii in California. The colors correspond to the different subspecies.
If you've skimmed a high school biology textbook, you've probably seen the picture: multicolored salamanders meander around California, displaying subtle shifts in appearance as they circle its Central Valley. This is Ensatina eschscholtzii, and it's so well known because it is a living example of speciation in action. Adjacent populations of the salamander look similar and mate with one another — but where the two ends of the loop overlap in Southern California, the two populations look quite different and behave as distinct species. The idea is that this continuum of salamanders — called a ring species — represents the evolutionary history of the lineage as it split into two.

---

A video about the same stuff,

---

Quote:

---

iThink said:
This doesn't even refute my point. Changing color is not the same as changing your DNA.

---

Quote:

---

falcon said:
Putting a position where the change of species occurs, the position where one population cannot breed with another, it not a simple case of dividing generation x and generation (x + 1) into two different species. It fact the study to me seems to show that you can chose generation x and show that it can breed with and is biologically co specific with generation (x + y) where y is the limit in a linage where generation x will not be able to breed with generation (x + y + 1), but generation x and generation (x + y + 1) will both be able to breed with generation (x + z), where z is a whole number less than y. If you accept that this is the case any place where you delineate the species between generation x and generation (x + y + 1) will be arbitrary and not based on any observable facts.

---

Quote:

---

falcon said:
I doesn't but the egg doesn't come before the chicken either, because there is no point where you can say at this time there was an egg that developed into a chicken. There is a process of proto-chicken and its eggs moving towards becoming chicken and its eggs.

This is dependent on the chickens following the same process of evolution as the salamander in the previous example.

---

Quote:

---

I doesn't but the egg doesn't come before the chicken either, because there is no point where you can say at this time there was an egg that developed into a chicken. There is a process of proto-chicken and its eggs moving towards becoming chicken and its eggs.

---

Quote:

---

Diaboleros said:
Evolution is happening all the time, there is no difference between a chicken and a proto-chicken.

---

How do you figure? 

Quote:

---

But then you might as well claim God created the cell as it came from nothing to start with.

---

Quote:

---

the human abstract said:
1 out of the million chicken or the egg posts

---

Quote:

---

the human abstract said:
1 out of the million chicken or the egg posts

---