Im new to this board but have always loved debating people on this topic. The one question that has never been answered to my satifaction is which came first the chicken or the egg? If this been addressed please point me to the link.
Thank you
which came first
Moderator: Moderators
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20853
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 214 times
- Been thanked: 366 times
- Contact:
Post #11
This idea has been brought up more than once here. And I am completely ignornant of this theory. Could you explain why then existing animals (as well as the fossil record) are completely different and we don't have any record of a "gradual" change from animal to the next? What are the parents of chickens then?Abs like J' wrote: Rather than there being one, monumental genetic change leading a known species to give birth to an entirely new species, a population of one species could become separated with one continuing to evolve to such a point that years later the offspring would be a separate species from the other group. The evolution from A to B would be the result of gradual accumulations of genetic changes for the population and would be imperceptible enough from one generation to the next that such problematic scenarios as previously painted would not exist.
-
- Student
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:07 pm
- Location: Louisville, KY
Post #12
In the leap to find a quick answer and evade the scientific work necessary for comprehensive understanding, it seems many proponents of creationism want a complete, unadulterated fossil record documenting with precision the changes within a species and changes from one species to the next. Unfortunately, fossilization doesn't work that way. Considering the quantity of life that has existed, and exists still today, fossilization is a rare process.
In order for an organism to become a fossil it first has to be enclosed in sediments prior to being eaten or decaying. If we slaughter 2,000 chickens in the wild and leave the corpses resting on the ground, very few (if any) will become encased in sediment for fossilization. Of those that might be preserved momentarily in sediment, the remains then have to avoid destruction from other organisms that disrupt sediment, possibly leading to the fragmenting or erosion of shells and bones. And then there are also the purely geological events such as movement of the tectonic plates, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc... consider all the necessary conditions for fossilization coupled with the amount of time fossils have to escape destruction for discovery and gaps in the fossil record are understandable without assuming them to simply be a damning witness against evolutionary theory.
The evolutionary process I referred to in regards to the chicken is known as allopatric speciation:
In order for an organism to become a fossil it first has to be enclosed in sediments prior to being eaten or decaying. If we slaughter 2,000 chickens in the wild and leave the corpses resting on the ground, very few (if any) will become encased in sediment for fossilization. Of those that might be preserved momentarily in sediment, the remains then have to avoid destruction from other organisms that disrupt sediment, possibly leading to the fragmenting or erosion of shells and bones. And then there are also the purely geological events such as movement of the tectonic plates, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc... consider all the necessary conditions for fossilization coupled with the amount of time fossils have to escape destruction for discovery and gaps in the fossil record are understandable without assuming them to simply be a damning witness against evolutionary theory.
The evolutionary process I referred to in regards to the chicken is known as allopatric speciation:
I've never read what the evolutionary ancestors of chickens are and don't see that identifying them would be necessary as the point of the question is more in regards to evolution than how evolution is applied specifically to the chicken. If you or anyone else does feel it's an issue of pressing importance, I don't imagine it would be that difficult to find out.In their separate niches, the two groups go their own evolutionary ways, accumulating different gene mutations, being subjected to different selective pressures, experiencing different historical events, finally becoming incapable of interbreeding should they ever come together again. For many years this has been regarded as the main process by which new species arise.
Often this type of speciation occurs in three steps. First, the populations become physically separated, often by a long, slow geological process like an uplift of land, the movement of a glacier, or formation of a body of water. Next, the separated populations diverge, through changes in mating tactics or use of their habitat. Third, they become reproductively separated such that they cannot interbreed and exchange genes.
Under normal conditions, genes in a given population are exchanged through breeding, so that even if some variation occurs, it is limited by this "gene flow." But gene flow is interrupted if the population becomes divided into two groups. One way this happens is by "vicariance," geographical change that can be slow or rapid.
"Art, music, and philosophy are merely poignant examples of what we might have been had not the priests and traders gotten hold of us."
— George Carlin
— George Carlin
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20853
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 214 times
- Been thanked: 366 times
- Contact:
Post #13
I don't expect to find all the life forms to exist in the fossil record. What I expect is a totally random sample of past life forms. The fossil record should have animals that are in transition from one major feature to the next (wings, eyes, sexual reproduction, lungs, etc). Instead, major features just appears without the many steps in between.Abs like J' wrote:In the leap to find a quick answer and evade the scientific work necessary for comprehensive understanding, it seems many proponents of creationism want a complete, unadulterated fossil record documenting with precision the changes within a species and changes from one species to the next. Unfortunately, fossilization doesn't work that way. Considering the quantity of life that has existed, and exists still today, fossilization is a rare process.
If you can find the direct ancestor of a chicken, I would be impressed.I've never read what the evolutionary ancestors of chickens are and don't see that identifying them would be necessary as the point of the question is more in regards to evolution than how evolution is applied specifically to the chicken. If you or anyone else does feel it's an issue of pressing importance, I don't imagine it would be that difficult to find out.

-
- Student
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:07 pm
- Location: Louisville, KY
Post #14
From Otseng:
The study of evolution of species looks to the ever growing fossil record, looks at the genetics of current species, and thus far all findings have supported the theory. Expected gaps in the fossil record when considering the circumstances behind fossilization and the excavation of fossils aren't witnesses against evolution; they are simply a natural byproduct that honest scientists must toil through to better understand the evolution of species over the course of time.
As I believe has been pointed out at least once before on this site, there are transitional fossils showing the evolution of biological species. There are many that have large jumps in the fossil record -- more so than step-by-step evolutions -- but that's to be expected when considering the rarity of fossilization and the relatively miniscule amount of the world that has been excavated.The fossil record should have animals that are in transition from one major feature to the next (wings, eyes, sexual reproduction, lungs, etc).
The study of evolution of species looks to the ever growing fossil record, looks at the genetics of current species, and thus far all findings have supported the theory. Expected gaps in the fossil record when considering the circumstances behind fossilization and the excavation of fossils aren't witnesses against evolution; they are simply a natural byproduct that honest scientists must toil through to better understand the evolution of species over the course of time.
"Art, music, and philosophy are merely poignant examples of what we might have been had not the priests and traders gotten hold of us."
— George Carlin
— George Carlin
Chicken or Egg? Ha!
Post #15I'm as much an advocate of good science as of the faith, so it isn't difficult for me to advance an opinion. I'm convinced that God has used "evolution" in ways we don't fully understand as the primary means of creation, the Biblical account being a metaphor meant only to illustrate divine cause. Various methods of sexual reproduction developed in very small stages as the life force advanced itself against changing conditions. On the level above the single celled protozoan, we see eggs being formed in the simplest of organisms, so this is where it started, then became more complex as more complex species developed. If anything, the adult organism came first, but it was really a simultaneous development as the initial organism found better ways to adapt to changing conditions.
Please, I do not pretend to guess whether or not men evolved from apes -seems unlikely, but how all those things really did happen will never be known with certainty, many "scientists" are too absorbed with connecting dots and tending dumb theories, while many religious folk err on the other side by missing God's real message. I try not to burden myself with trivial speculations. I have, however, written a really terrific poem about the Paramecium which illustrates the dynamics of populations in general and the natural advantages of sexual reproduction that are obvious to anyone who's studied them well. If anyone would like to have a copy, let me know, and I'll send you one.
Please, I do not pretend to guess whether or not men evolved from apes -seems unlikely, but how all those things really did happen will never be known with certainty, many "scientists" are too absorbed with connecting dots and tending dumb theories, while many religious folk err on the other side by missing God's real message. I try not to burden myself with trivial speculations. I have, however, written a really terrific poem about the Paramecium which illustrates the dynamics of populations in general and the natural advantages of sexual reproduction that are obvious to anyone who's studied them well. If anyone would like to have a copy, let me know, and I'll send you one.
- Angry McFurious
- Student
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 10:24 pm
Post #18
Maybe we are all thinking about this the wrong way around.. What if the Chicken is just the egg's way of making another egg???



"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 10:41 pm
Re: which came first
Post #19show don't tell wrote:Im new to this board but have always loved debating people on this topic. The one question that has never been answered to my satifaction is which came first the chicken or the egg? If this been addressed please point me to the link.
Thank you
Chickens first. Please go to http://chickensfirst.net and you will find out
why.
Jianyi Zhang
Post #20
Gary Larson weighed in on this one once.
Now let's see....how long have chickens been around? Probably less long than humans, since they are now known to have descended from the Red Jungle Fowl of Asia. That is, humans domesticated them. So, the question may be whether the Red Jungle Fowl came first.
On the other hand, how long have animals been making eggs? As far as I know, that's one of the definitions of animals--they make eggs, whether the eggs are tiny and form placentas (humans and other mammals), or whether they are squirted out into the world to fend for themselves (sea urchins and lots of others). There are plenty of fossil eggs, particularly of dinosaurs. Most eggs are too soft (no shell, like fish eggs or frog eggs) and too small to be likely to be preserved as fossils.
So, I'd have to say that animals have been making eggs since long before the first "chicken."
As I see it, some of the debate here centers on the notion of "transitional fossils." As one of my friends said a few years ago, "we never see transitional forms--like a dog/bear running around in the woods." Animals don't just wake up one day and find that they have "mutated" into something else. What happens is: one by one, mutations occur in the DNA. Over years and years, generations and generations, mutations accumulate. A transitional fossil won't be a dino/bird caught in the act of changing. It will be something that is either a dinosaur (a small maniraptor type, kind of like the velociraptors of Jurassic Park, but smaller) with some bird-like features. Or, it may be a bird, with some dinosaur-like features.
It's only in recent years that we've found enough dinosaur nests to be able to infer that (1) they had nests and (2) parent dinosaurs took care of the nests (at least, dinosaurs of the species whose nests we've found with Mom fossilized along with the kids).
It's not so easy to picture evolution working in small steps like this, but that's pretty much how it works. See here for a simplified animation that attempts to illustrate the point.
Now let's see....how long have chickens been around? Probably less long than humans, since they are now known to have descended from the Red Jungle Fowl of Asia. That is, humans domesticated them. So, the question may be whether the Red Jungle Fowl came first.
On the other hand, how long have animals been making eggs? As far as I know, that's one of the definitions of animals--they make eggs, whether the eggs are tiny and form placentas (humans and other mammals), or whether they are squirted out into the world to fend for themselves (sea urchins and lots of others). There are plenty of fossil eggs, particularly of dinosaurs. Most eggs are too soft (no shell, like fish eggs or frog eggs) and too small to be likely to be preserved as fossils.
So, I'd have to say that animals have been making eggs since long before the first "chicken."
As I see it, some of the debate here centers on the notion of "transitional fossils." As one of my friends said a few years ago, "we never see transitional forms--like a dog/bear running around in the woods." Animals don't just wake up one day and find that they have "mutated" into something else. What happens is: one by one, mutations occur in the DNA. Over years and years, generations and generations, mutations accumulate. A transitional fossil won't be a dino/bird caught in the act of changing. It will be something that is either a dinosaur (a small maniraptor type, kind of like the velociraptors of Jurassic Park, but smaller) with some bird-like features. Or, it may be a bird, with some dinosaur-like features.
It's only in recent years that we've found enough dinosaur nests to be able to infer that (1) they had nests and (2) parent dinosaurs took care of the nests (at least, dinosaurs of the species whose nests we've found with Mom fossilized along with the kids).
It's not so easy to picture evolution working in small steps like this, but that's pretty much how it works. See here for a simplified animation that attempts to illustrate the point.