The Chicken And Egg Problem, this problem refers to all species

Hello,As you can see from the title of the topic this is actually a very seriouas problem not only considering the chicken's origin but of insects, molluscs, arthropods etc. aswell.So, any suggestions what was first?PS: Please be serious.
NitaiThis message has been edited by Nitai, 05-11-2005 04:55 AM

Fern 480 White Ash 138 Carp 100
Goldfish 94 Sweet Potato 90 Turkey 82
Chicken 78 Dog 78 Duck 78
Horse 64 Cow 60 Silkworm 56
Cotton 52 Amoeba 50 Chimp 48
Tobacco 48 Human 46This scheme shows the number of chromosomes in these species. Its unbelievable that from single celled living entity an Amoeba developed with 50 chromosomes. More then in human - only 46.Jokingly, if I accept evolution that means humans will develop into Amoebas, sweet potatoes, a goldfish and ultimately the fern with 480 chromosomes?
And --- it seems before chickens and eggs there was a man.This message has been edited by Nitai, 05-11-2005 10:35 AM

You say: "The first 'chicken' would have had to hatch from some 'proto-chicken' egg, and therefore the egg would have come first".
Do you think here about the 'hopeful monster' theory? Chicken coming out from the crocodile egg? Or vice versa?I cannot demonstrate that evolution implies progression towards a greater number of chromosomes but in any text book on evolution you will find the information that humans are superior because they have more chromosomes, or let's put it differently because they have more genes.The supprising discovery I found is that human genome is comparatively small, only about 25,000 genes, compared to a rice kernel with 60,000 genes. Or look this site Sizing up genomes: Amoeba is kingThis was written by serious scientists.But OK. ALthough the evolutionary connection is not clear, let's say that the complexity of an organism doesn't depend on the number of chromosomes. At least that's obvious. Still with this, the question is not solved. And that is, how is it that so many chromosomes are there in the lower animals that are in the beginning scale of evoluton; and for what they need so much chromosomes; etc.Finally back to the original point. If you know 100% the exact develpment of x-entity into chicken please supply here all the details of genetic transformations and demonstrate that in the laboratory. I am sure you will get a Nobel prize. But anyway, I am not interested only in dry unproved theories. I want practical proof.Now, let me a bit speculate. If I assume that the developing x-entity (pre-chicken) was gradually evolving, the egg should have also developed gradually. But than, the problems would be:
1) laying the egg - if the shell is not strong it would be immediatelly smashed and become the feast for other animals. (Maybe some ape aeting the first egg)2) Moreover, even if somehow the egg would not become smashed the x-entity would not lay on it to not brake the egg so the chicken or x-entity would never hatch.So, again problems.
I look forward for your reply.
NitaiThis message has been edited by Nitai, 05-11-2005 01:29 PMThis message has been edited by Nitai, 05-11-2005 01:32 PMThis message has been edited by Nitai, 05-11-2005 01:38 PM

So, in the very beginning there was no any membrane and thus the poor living entity would just dissolve in the water?This message has been edited by Nitai, 05-11-2005 10:55 PM

So, what would be the advantage of tadpole or any similar type of living entity to develop first a kind of membrane and then egg-shell?Moreover, as long as you don't give me the exact detailed scheme of genetic transformations that show the evolution and then demostrate this in the laboratory I don't see any reason to accept your wishful hypothesis based on comparition of similarities of different species.Other problem with your example is that tadpole is already quite developed and so doesn't need any shell. And if you see the substance of an egg, take it out and put it in the water - no any chicken will develop in that way and you will be hungry too. What a big loss.This message has been edited by Nitai, 05-12-2005 12:51 AM

1) You begin insulting here, that's argument for nothing.2) After demonstrating your theory I will consider to accept it. Without demonstration, simulating evolution everything is incomplete. Just like the half hen logic? Did you heard about it?A man who had a hen was becoming rich selling the eggs but he was thinking that the hen eats up too much money. So he cut the hen's head desiring to have only the eggs. And what was the result?Whatever will be your answer this was my last post on this topic.
You can consider me to be defeated.This message has been edited by Nitai, 05-12-2005 10:25 AM

There is no such thing like ex-nihilo.
That's a Christian myth.Nor there was a small chunk becoming bigger and bigger.
Thet's the Darwinistic myth.Both are irrational big bluffs.For few days I have no time. Bye.