|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Chicken And Egg Problem, this problem refers to all species | |||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4580 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
Rock on. See you 'round.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4580 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
OOOOH, now things are starting to get interesting!
Most of the people who come on this forum trashing "Darwinism" are of the conservative Christian type, with a few noteworthy exceptions. Pray tell, what is your persuasion? We might have a more productive discussion if you'd come out and say what you're arguing for, instead of just attacking various points of evo theory. Indulge me!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Judging by the username, and the email (avadhutaraya), I would take a wild swing at some kind of Hindu or Krsna follower.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4580 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
Don't they say humans have been around 100My?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I'm not sure. I don't know if there is anything so concrete in Hindu texts but I haven't studied them. According to this We are in the 51st Brahma year and one Brahma year is 8.64 billion human years. From the site:
quote: Though I can not vouch for the accuracy of the site...we'll just have to wait for Nitai to tell us all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
is this
http://chickensfirst.net (you had a ";" instead of the ":") your site (presumably you are the author of the book it references)? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
try this site for some information on Hindu Creationism
Creationism: The Hindu View It seems to be that they would be looking at the 'brane theory and finding a lot of correlations enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
there is disagreement on that actual numbers (just like fundies numbers) but the implication is of vast age and recurring rebirth of universes
another site you might want to look at isAngelfire - error 410 funny that one group says too old, another says too young. enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
This is a long,long way off topic.
Please get back to the egg or the chicken or whatever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
obviously the first chicken came from an egg, because eggs existed before chickens did.
where the first egg came from is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure enough information exists to begin to make even a less than educated guess. especially when it is so loosely defined in the OP: are bacteria included? yeasts? fungi? btw -- it's about time we had a Hindu Creationist to add some balance, and I think it is fair to educate people on what their beliefs involve. fair enough? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
btw, welcome to the fray Nitai. I hope you find more time to visit.
one of the posters suggests that you are a follower of Hindu or Krishna beliefs ... is this true? if so, doubly welcome. most creationists we get here are of the christian or muslim faiths, and it is welcome to have a contrasting viewpoint. enjoy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5780 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
I always thought that the "Chicken and the Egg Problem" was a way of starting an evolution vs creation argument.
Evolutionist: The egg came first. The thing that laid it was not quite a chicken. Creationist: The chicken came first. The first was created by God in the garden of Eden. Ding ding! Round One!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
Since RazD has raised a question of some actual consequence,
I am lured back into this thread. An 'egg' in the strict biological sense, is a single germ cell with the capacity to give rise to an embryo.However, with the exception of mammals and a few fish where development is nurtured internally by the female, the egg also contains all the resources necessary for embryological development of an entire new multicellular organism. The biological condition of egg production is termed 'oogamy'. It doesn't matter whether it is sexually or asexually produced, but it must contain sufficient resources for completed embrylogical development if it is laid freely in the environment, so many other forms of dispersed propagule (say a fungal spore) do not qualify because they require external inputs of energy for developmenting into a multicelluar organism. However, I would contend that the evolution of the egg was contingent on the evolution of sexual reproduction first, even though some lineages secondarily lost sexuality and evolved eggs that could develop successfully without fertilization. The evolution of sexuality probably began with the fusion of gametes of equal size (isogamy), but the emergence of the 'male' stragey of producing the smallest possible gametes resulted in the countering 'female' strategy of investing sufficient resources in each to ensure the survival of the zygote, regardless of the sperm containing virtually zero resources. As I stated in another thread:
EZ writes:
Ever since the strategy of "maleness" evolved... it has been one of "produce the most gametes possible with the least investment in each". This enables the production of more and more gametes by putting fewer and fewer resources in each. While this might seem like a form of genetic parasitism (it is), it cannot displace the female strategy because really small gamates must fuse with a large one to produce a viable zygote. So we must keep in mind that the success of males in producing "cheap sperm" was also the driving force behind the evolution of truly female characters - few large eggs with all the cytoplasmic resources necesssary for embryo development.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024