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

Your attitude seems to indicate that you have already made your conclusions and are just looking for some amusing confrontation. Am I wrong?Given that the first egg-layers lived in water, and that the first egg was laid before predators had developed egg-eating abilities and behavior (what good would it have been till then?), even a thin mucous membrane around one's developing offspring would have been an advantage. Then one can expect jaws to get sharper and shells to get thicker and harder. If you're not familiar with the concept of an evolutionary arms race, that would suggest you're not very well versed in modern biology.

quote:

---

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

---

I'll give you two options:A: give an example to support this claim, or;
B: retract it.Subtle hint: you don't have a leg to stand on.This assertion, which you claim is ubiquitous in "evolution" textbooks, would be profoundly laughable for the very reasons you describe. I learned in science class at age 12 that crawfish have several times the chromosomes I do. I also learned a bit about evolution, and it was clear that chromosome count had nothing to do with it.You seem to have some misconceptions about evolutionary theory. You do have an interesting sample of data points... you're aware of the hopeful monster concept, but not sure how it is relevant to this issue. You seem to have just sort of flung it out there as a vague accusation, without realizing that it is simply a caricature of RM/NS and not a legitimate scientific concept. You wrongly think that chromosome count is somehow claimed by biologists as an indicator of some kind of "superiority". Unfortunately, evolutionary theory makes no claims about superiority at all. It does say that the fitness of an organism relative to its environment (which includes such things as climate, food sources, predators, and even fellow members of the species) affects its likelihood of producing viable offspring. To use emotionally loaded terms like superiority simply distracts from the issues and interferes with the ability of humans to process these ideas rationally.

Yay, magic bullet!I was just thinking about that same concept a second ago. Anyway, great post. How ya been? Wife still in school?
(I'm sure you can get away with one off-topic post before the shutdown takes place)

Have you ever seen a frog egg?
The tadpole inside swims almost like it's in the pond already. It doesn't dissolve. It has two advantages: it's better fed and it's ever-so-slightly safer inside. It doesn't need the membrane to keep its insides from falling out... it just gets a better chance at life by staying in there for a while.

Safety during its early development. Are you being deliberately obtuse? You may not realize it, but that's a ridiculous statement. If you required that level of confirmation for every idea presented to you, you would believe absolutely nothing. Chances are that you've already accepted some alternative based on very little evidence. So, why are you here? Your mind is made up despite your stunning lack of information, and your demands cannot and will not be met, nor are you going to persuade anyone (not even a marginally informed layman like me) with your total lack of expertise in biology. Seems you're wasting your time.By the way, I'm not wishing; I'm interpolating. Look it up in the dictionary. I'm not sure what your point is. Of course, egg yolk would disperse if placed in open water. However, chickens don't lay shell-free eggs in the water, so it's not a problem. You have enough difficulties already... let's deal with them first.

I'm sorry if I was rude. Please forgive me.Honestly, I'm not here to "win" any arguments, and it gives me no pleasure that you say this is your last post. I only wanted to shake up your perspective. The facts as I see them are these: you don't know very much about bio/evo theory, you have major misconceptions, and you make great demands that are impossible to meet. You also seem to have a double standard for evidence, though this is mainly a guess because I'm not sure what claims you have actually accepted. I was only trying to help you see these facts. The finer points of egg development are beyond both of us, IMHO, as are many other things. Fortunately, this place is full of more educated folks in just about every area of science, and they are generally happy to instruct the willing. That's why I'm here. Why are you here?

Rock on. See you 'round.

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!

Don't they say humans have been around 100My?