The egg came first

I liked the one where the chicken is in bed with the egg and smoking, and the egg is glowering ...caption "well I guess we know who came first ..."

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Time_{(Chicken-->non-chicken)} << Time_{(Egg-->non-egg)}

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

as you go back in timefrom chicken to non-chickenfrom egg to non-eggthe time (Chicken-->non-chicken) is much less than the time (Egg-->non-egg)ergo the egg came first.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

changing egg to chicken-egg begs the question. But there is, in part because we make artificial deliniations between ancient species divisions: at some point the species that lays the egg is 99.999% chicken but the egg is 100% and the offspring can mate with the 99.999% and other 100% chickens.and the difference between the egg and one from a generation before is less than the difference between the chicken and one from a generation before.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

um, that's exactly what I mean how, other than the proverbial hopeful monster? Of course. That is true of any species in transition, which happens to include all species that ever existed. Each generation to generation sequence in the same species by definition, unless you have a generation of hopeful monsters all in one whack.The distinctions are arbitrary and problematical, but they are useful to describe sufficient change over time to be noticeably different.Or do you think species should only be drawn when there is a clear branching? How fast does that happen?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Great, so we are supposed to do your teacher's job now?If you are doing a report on evolution the first requirement might be something like ...... gosh ...... oh, I don't know ...... learn what the subject is about first?It seems that every single post of yours that I have seen is nothing but complete misconceptions and ignorance (meaning you just don't know, not that you are mentally deficient).You might also consider learning the difference between science and faith before proceeding too, but that might be asking a lot eh?(like asking for a rational approach maybe?)you will only get out of education what YOU put into it.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Teaching a young mind that is open to ideas and asks questions is one thing, to respond to one that asserts several PRATTs as facts is not.PRATTs are Points Refuted A Thousand TimesI didn't say you were rude, I said you were ignorant, and qualified that as one who doesn't have the knowledge and not one ill equiped to process the knowledge when it is pursued. For one, demonstrate that you are truly curious and not trying to base all your arguments on pseudoscientific creationist propoganda, for two, that has nothing to do with what good science teachers in good science classes should teach. This is a {logical fallacy argument}, and you better become familiar with this expression because it is common problem with non-scientific thinking. Wow. Now read and research evolution. I suggest you start with something simple like the wikipedia site:
Evolution - WikipediaAnother common fallacy of creationist propoganda is that Darwin is central to the science. In point of fact he was one of several people that were coming to a common understanding due to the weight of evidence before their eyes -- eyes that were looking with an open mind. Several theories in Darwin's book have been invalidated by later work. Reading the book is not studying the science.And judging from your posts you have not begun to study the science of evolution "From all points of few" or you would have known that you made several really ignorant blunders. This is not the comment of an open mind but one that has only looked at creationist propoganda. It is another logical fallacy compounded by ignorance. Like I said you need to learn the difference. Show me one falsifiable validation test for creationism. ONE (1).Until you have that you do not have a science, no matter what assertions to the contrary you or other make.Now, I'm sorry if what I said earlier seemed harsh, but in point of fact you need to discard everything you think you have learned about evolution -- pro and con -- and start over from scratch.Richard Dawkins has a(n in)famous quote where he says "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." He later goes on to qualify it by saying "I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under "insane" but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed." I call this fifth state deluded.The whole article is Ignorance Is No Crime (click), and I recommend you read it. Personally I find Dawkins to be a little over the top with his "anti-theism" and that he has made some logically invalid claims from that perspective, but the point is that evolution is not that hard a science to understand, if you have -- truly have -- an open mind.Read the wikipedia article. If you find yourself shaking your head and saying "that's not right" then ask yourself {why} do you think that? {what} is the actual evidence you have? {where} can you go to find unbiased answers? {how} can you validate the evidence? {who} can you ask to help?Now go and learn some correct basics, rather than stumble around with incorrect information.And when you return, ask one question at a time instead of trying to show off your ignorance in as many {forum\threads} as you can find.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

hey crash,I think what bkelly is arguing is more like parent 49.9999...999% chicken, offspring 50.0000...001% ... or whatever the common diffeence is between parent and child in all species.That as you go back in the human ancestor lineage you find an arbitrary line that says "above this line is Homo sapiens, below is Homo not-sapiens" (and then further back to "above this line is Homo, below is not-Homo" or "above this line is Homonid, below is not-Homoinid" etc), and that the line is completely arbitrary at the point (year\month\day\second) that the line is "drawn" when viewed from the population living at the time.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.