The chicken or the egg?

[slicer4ever]

i submit that evolutionarily the chicken came first, but literally the egg came first.

evolutionarily, think about it, the earliest forms of biological lifeforms would split to procreate, however, at some point, after thousands upon thousands of minor mutations, some life forms required a mate to procreate, at one point, a boundary was most likely crossed where life most probably could either split to procreate, or another life form could "mate" with it, and procreate, eventually, the latter form produced more lifeforms that could survive, and procreate, removing the splitting method(through more and more mutations), and eventually a mutation occurred, which gave way to the chickens we know today, which layed an egg, just as it's slightly different versions before it had been doing, since the moment an lifeform developed a mutation that caused it to lay eggs outside of the body.

of course if we ask the question from a literal standpoint(life, or the seed of life?), i'd say the seed came first, or at least a series of particles which combined in such a way, and over millions upon millions of years, which eventually gave way to the life we know of today, starting out as some super simple combination of elements to from an extremely simple protein, or such, basically my argument is that life does not require life to be created, but just a correct combination of particles(for example, break any living organism down, and you find it's just a bunch of atoms)

thoughts?

 

[elite]

Even with the correct combination of particles, you need a soul in that structure. Similarly, break up a human into its organs. Recompile the organs. Does it make an actual human? No, soul doesn't exist.

 

[slicer4ever]

Even with the correct combination of particles, you need a soul in that structure. Similarly, break up a human into its organs. Recompile the organs. Does it make an actual human? No, soul doesn't exist.

what is a soul?, it seems superficial to believe in something that no one has been able to quantify or view, i can understand a definition of a soul as being the sum of experiences and thoughts that a person has had, and a sum of their action, but i do not see how a soul is something that is required for the equation of life to work.

as for if re-compiling the organs can re-create a human, theoretically, it should be possible from a biological standpoint, we simply don't have the tools at the moment to bring a person back from the dead, but theoretically, if we could ever create tools to regenerate cells, and correctly send the right electrical signals into the body, it might be possible to kill a person, remove the organs, put them back in, and then bring them back, could we do it within this decade, no, could we do it in a hundred or two hundred years...maybe?, but that really depends on if we well hinder such science progress with ethical debates.

 

[elite]

It is a fact that no one has ever quantified your brain. Nobody has touched it. Nobody has smelt it. Nobody has saw it. However, you and me do believe that you have a brain.
If you do think that you need to quantify or view so to believe criterion, then you have to believe that you don't have a brain. I don't think that after reading this you'd go and have an MRI scan to prove that you have a brain since you and me know for granted that you have a brain.
Another example, pain can't be quantified or viewed, but you do feel it when someone hits you with a brick on your head.

 

[eldiablov]

mention of souls

*Nudges elite and reminds him we're in smart talk*

 

[slicer4ever]

It is a fact that no one has ever quantified your brain. Nobody has touched it. Nobody has smelt it. Nobody has saw it. However, you and me do believe that you have a brain.
If you do think that you need to quantify or view so to believe criterion, then you have to believe that you don't have a brain. I don't think that after reading this you'd go and have an MRI scan to prove that you have a brain since you and me know for granted that you have a brain.
Another example, pain can't be quantified or viewed, but you do feel it when someone hits you with a brick on your head.

i'm assuming that you are talking about me specifically in your example, however, the example your giving is very weak imo, a soul has never been viewed, a soul has never been studied, yes, i have never personally viewed my brain, but the fact is, i can view my brain, i could get brain surgery, or as you said an MRI, i could die, and people could examine my brain, they could study my brain, and so on, a soul, their is no soul that can be examined(while alive, or dead), their has never been an object in the human body that has ever been shown as a soul

pain, as well as an example that you point out is something that can be quantified, and viewed, not only do we know that our skin has receptors in it to send electrical signals to the brain, we also understand where in the brain, pain is associated with, and to some degree, we understand the mechanics involved, a soul has no such explanation.

pain, and a brain can both be explained, and can both be viewed on a biological level, nowhere have we ever viewed, or have been able to explain the soul, other than people saying "their has to be something more, their has to be a soul", each time that get's said, is just a person trying to justify that we can't be as simple beings that are as basic as a bunch of atoms coming together in a certain way.

IMO, their is no argument you could make to prove that a "soul" does exist, their is no object you can reference, no scientific explanation that can say a soul is something that each person has, nor is their any event which has occurred in relation to a soul, however, i can prove pain, and i can prove we have brains, i don't mind if you keep trying, but don't try to use things that are easily explained to explain why we haven't viewed a soul, instead i'd ask you actually try to prove we have an soul, instead of trying to prove it's their just because i've never personally looked at my brain.

anything spiritual, or religious can not be proved, NOR can it be disproved, which is why i'd like to keep this discussion a bit more toward scientific basis, instead of religious/spiritual, but that's kindof the nature of this question i suppose.

 

[Abe Froeman]

Magnificent comma use there slicer.

 

[slicer4ever]

Magnificent comma use there slicer.

isn't it=-), i was never very good at writing essays=-(

 

[FalconMJ]

I think the egg came first, maybe a different bird had laid a mutant egg, resulting in the birth of a chicken??

 

[Spiros]

I think the egg came first, maybe a different bird had laid a mutant egg, resulting in the birth of a chicken??

Serious?

I definitely agree with slicer, though I couldn't say it better than he did, some form of chicken would have had to come first, which would then have evolved into the chickens we know today, laying eggs to procreate. [STRIKE]But yeah, like you said when you look at it literally, is that early form of a chicken(that didn't lay eggs) really a chicken? [/STRIKE]Forget that. IMO, the chicken came first.

 

[SilverSpring]

Of course, the answer depends on the definition of 'egg'. If the first chicken born hatched from an egg defined as a chicken egg then the egg came first, however if the first chicken born hatched from an egg defined as a non-chicken egg then then the chicken came first.

It all depends on how you define the egg that was laid by the chicken-like bird ancestor of the chicken. Did it lay a 'chicken' egg, or did it lay it's own species' egg from which a chicken hatched.

It's all semantics.

 

[Bear 94]

i submit that evolutionarily the chicken came first, but literally the egg came first.

evolutionarily, think about it, the earliest forms of biological lifeforms would split to procreate, however, at some point, after thousands upon thousands of minor mutations, some life forms required a mate to procreate, at one point, a boundary was most likely crossed where life most probably could either split to procreate, or another life form could "mate" with it, and procreate, eventually, the latter form produced more lifeforms that could survive, and procreate, removing the splitting method(through more and more mutations), and eventually a mutation occurred, which gave way to the chickens we know today, which layed an egg, just as it's slightly different versions before it had been doing, since the moment an lifeform developed a mutation that caused it to lay eggs outside of the body.

of course if we ask the question from a literal standpoint(life, or the seed of life?), i'd say the seed came first, or at least a series of particles which combined in such a way, and over millions upon millions of years, which eventually gave way to the life we know of today, starting out as some super simple combination of elements to from an extremely simple protein, or such, basically my argument is that life does not require life to be created, but just a correct combination of particles(for example, break any living organism down, and you find it's just a bunch of atoms)

thoughts?

To answer the questions 'What came first; the egg or the chicken' can be broken into two categories....
First is the religious view: Which is that God created animals - therefore the chicken cames first then the chicken laid all the other eggs,,,,
Then athiest view: It's like an impossible puzzle because a chicken had to have once been an egg... so egg would have come first but then where did the egg come from??

I think the Chicken came first. My idea includes the scientific view that all things evolve. So after the dinosaurs were all killed by the meteor some creatures survived and evolved into the animals we know today. So an animal perhaps had mutation in his/her genes or due to environmental changes like the ice age had to adapt to the new environment causing change in their niche.... until it evolved into a chicken then the chicken lays eggs.
But it's always going to be a maybe because the animal that chickens evolved from could have been weird animals that gave birth like dogs and cats, without the egg....
But that just sounds weird