Chicken or the Egg?

[bigmrpig]

As a preface, I would just like to say that I'm a 15 year old boy who should be doing his homework, but I just want to get out my opinion on why Creationists should not say that evolution doesn't provide an answer for which came first, the chicken or the egg.

The chicken is not something that is defined, it's simply a classification we give to a certain animal with similar characteristics. These characteristics cannot be defined to a genetic level, which is what evolution is based off of. A chicken can evolve and still be a chicken. Therefore, the problem with asking this question of evolutionists is that evolution says that organisms advance, not that they change species. The change is something we identify in hindsight.

Since the "chicken" cannot be defined genetically, evolution cannot say when it first existed. The chicken, under evolution, evolved gradually. And evolution <i>can</i> say that if you can give a definition of chicken genetically, then it can say which came first. The egg did, because before the modern chicken existed, there were chicken-like animals, and these bred and slowly evolved, eventually, theoretically, making a chicken, different from it's parents in a very slight way that made them not chickens.

But because chickens cannot be defined specifically enough, evolution cannot explain it, because evolution is an explanation of the changes of organisms and the chicken is a general undefined description of a group of similar organisms. Chickens.

So which came first, the chicken or the egg? Neither. Because a chicken is not definable.

Evolution could say that the egg came first if the "chicken" was specific enough, but it's not. It's like asking someone to find the value of X without giving them any information.

I could say that the only organism that could be considered a chicken are ones that have the exact same genetic structure as the one I had for dinner. Therefore, the only chicken in the world would be the one I had for dinner, because no others have the same structure. But this is obviously not the case, so the definition must be broadened; Unfortunately, this definition doesn't exist.

But if a definition for "chicken" existed, then evolution would say that it came from an egg laid by a chicken-like animal that came before it, and that the chicken-like animal laid an egg that had a precise genetic change that made it a chicken. The egg came first.

Or it will, once you define chicken, anyway.

Evolution does not track changes in species, it tracks changes it DNA. And it can be said that everything is the same species as whatever it came from. Which is why species' must, for the sake of simplicity, be generalized. Too general to track.

Now back to homework.

[juliod]

Because a chicken is not definable.

Welcome, and a very well written first post.

The only problem I would point out is that I don't think you should say that chicken is not definable. Instead I think you should say that the definition of chicken is not static. (I.e. That as you say, a chicken can evolve and still be a chicken.)

In any case, talking about chickens and eggs is silly, since all species of modern birds evolved long after eggs.

Well done, young sprout.

DanZ

[gluadys]

As a preface, I would just like to say that I'm a 15 year old boy who should be doing his homework, but I just want to get out my opinion on why Creationists should not say that evolution doesn't provide an answer for which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Welcome. And while you should be doing your homework, it is also wise to remember that schooling should not get in the way of education. There are a few minor corrections I would suggest.

The chicken is not something that is defined, it's simply a classification we give to a certain animal with similar characteristics.

Not quite true. Chicken is defined, but at different levels. The domestic chicken is defined as the species Gallus gallus. The genus Gallus is also referred to as "chicken" but includes a number of other species besides the domestic chicken such as the wild prairie chicken. There is also a whole order of Galliformes which includes all chickens and chicken-like species such as grouse and pheasants.

The definitions of course are somewhat arbitrary as groups above the species do not have a natural existence, but only exist as classifications for our convenience. But we do define each of these classifications.

Therefore, the problem with asking this question of evolutionists is that evolution says that organisms advance, not that they change species. The change is something we identify in hindsight.

This is a bit backwards about. Evolution does not say that organisms advance, nor species either. It does say that species change over time. And you are right, the changes occur gradually enough that we only identify them in hindsight.

But because chickens cannot be defined specifically enough, evolution cannot explain it, because evolution is an explanation of the changes of organisms and the chicken is a general undefined description of a group of similar organisms. Chickens.

Evolution is not a change in organisms. Changes in organisms which occur during their lifetime, are not inherited, so they don't count as evolutionary changes. Evolution is a change in species.

Evolution does not track changes in species, it tracks changes it DNA.

It does both actually. That's how we get the twin-nested hierarchy.

Now back to homework.

Good! Hope to see more from you.

[Jose]

As a preface, I would just like to say that I'm a 15 year old boy who should be doing his homework, but I just want to get out my opinion on why Creationists should not say that evolution doesn't provide an answer for which came first, the chicken or the egg.

I, too, say welcome! I second gluadys' recommendation that one not let schooling get in the way of education--but be cautious, since discussions like this can eat up your time very easily.

I like your reasoning. Just what is a "chicken"? There are lots of things we call chickens that look quite unlike one another, in size, coloration, feather types, etc. Very hazy definition. The Red Jungle Fowl looks sort of chicken-like, but is it a chicken? It's said to be the wild bird from which chickens were domesticated. If it's not a chicken, then chickens are the result of humans playing God, by guiding the genetics of the species over thousands of years.

Which brings me to your last point: that evolution tracks DNA, not species. The concept of "species" is our human attempt to categorize things. But if you follow the DNA, from generation to generation to generation, all you see is that with time, there are changes. If you follow one DNA molecule, from beginning of Life to today (ignoring its brothers and sisters--just look at one daughter DNA molecule every time it replicates), you'll see a continuous chain of descent, with occasional modifications. I bet that DNA molecule, and its ancestors and descendents, all believe they have been in the same species all the time. After all, each organism reproduces according to its kind.

So, if the DNA has always been part of the same species, but that species has gone through many morphological variations, why do we say that it has been different species? Are we calling things "species" just to satisfy our own need to catergorize things and give them names?

[YEC]

bigmrpig,

The chicken or the egg seems to be a thought provoking question.
In your argument you seemed to have defended the egg by pushing back a supposed evolutionary time line to a pre-chicken species.

Of course we then could ask the same question, what came first the "pre-chicken" species or its egg?

In which you then could push back the supposed time line even further to a pre-pre-chicken and egg.

The question that really need to be answered is....How did the egg evolve?

The argument is that you can't have an egg with out an animal to produce it and you can't have an animal with out an egg to develope from.

Perhaps we should also ask the question....what came first the kangaroo or the pouch?

[juliod]

In which you then could push back the supposed time line even further to a pre-pre-chicken and egg.

Hey YEC, you need to go back even further in evolution. Look up "alternation of generations". Some species alternate between diploid and haploid. The species on which I got my doctorate does that. Very interesting.

But you might think that chickens and us humans do that too. Our children are not other humans, but sperms and eggs. They fuse to produce a diploid that develops into a full-sized human. Diploid-haploid-diploid. Neat!

Why can't you tell which came first, the chicken or the egg? Because the alternation of generations goes way back to when we were all microbes.

DanZ

[YEC]

Hey juliod....do you think you can prove that?

Tell us, just how did the egg evolve?

How many mutations did it take?

[bigmrpig]

Hey juliod....do you think you can prove that?

Tell us, just how did the egg evolve?

How many mutations did it take?

That's an absurd question, because us not knowing how many mutations it took (as it's physically impossible to discover) does nothing to disprove the theory of evolution. It's like asking for how many molecules of water are in the ocean, and someone not being able to answer it proving that molecules don't exist. It's unrelated to the theory.

And no, he can't prove it. But there is evidence for evolution, while there is no evidence for creationism other than the bible, which is a very poor historical document due to the fact that so many exploits in it are a physical impossibility.

[juliod]

Hey, BMP, watch how I deal with YEC:

do you think you can prove that?

Nope. Evolutionary biology is not my field. But it explains away your chicken-and-the-egg problem, doesn't it?

just how did the egg evolve?

Possibly from the haploid generations of an alternating microbe.

How many mutations did it take?

Three.

(BMP: note how I use sarcasm to add that little "bite" to my post. )

DanZ

[YEC]

Hey juliod....do you think you can prove that?

Tell us, just how did the egg evolve?

How many mutations did it take?

That's an absurd question, because us not knowing how many mutations it took (as it's physically impossible to discover) does nothing to disprove the theory of evolution. It's like asking for how many molecules of water are in the ocean, and someone not being able to answer it proving that molecules don't exist. It's unrelated to the theory.

I was actually hoping for an estimate.
The evo crowd assumes they occur but never really tells you how many would be needed to complete the biological and morphological evolution

And no, he can't prove it. But there is evidence for evolution, while there is no evidence for creationism other than the bible, which is a very poor historical document due to the fact that so many exploits in it are a physical impossibility.

Two things you can do...start a thread presenting your best evidence for evolutionism and start a second thread pointing out your single best exploit as to why some of the biblical facts are impossible.
I would love to tackle those questions here but I think that might de-rail this topic.