The egg came first

If organisms are inclined to kill their own young if it's genome has an unusual mutation in it, then that organism would be selected from the gene pool. Thus, we see organims that don't do this, and instead see a general trend of strong maternal/paternal protective instinct instead...since that benefits said organisms genes. Are you suggesting a red jungle fowl would kill its young when it realizes it is a domestic chicken? How would the jungle fowl know this? Do jungle fowls have a classification system? I hope your instincts don't tell you to do that...my instincts would be to protect my child from the world. An interesting point. Maybe you have this backwards? The parent doesn't give birth to a hard-shelled so that it can do anything. It gives birth to a hard-shelled egg which protects it against the environment. This may mean it can leave the nest. It seems that the threat from predators is not greater than the benefits of protection garnered from hard eggs. You are thinking of individuals. We are talking about populations here, and the speciation is a gradual process that takes place in a population. It has a lot of relevance. That is why hard shelled eggs survived. That is why the domestic chicken survived.

Are you suggesting a bird that looks like this would think 'hey my young shouldn't look like this?Do you have any evidence for this, or is it just on opinion formed as a bare assertion? I understand your position. Your position is that the chicken egg may have a much larger chance of being eaten by predators. That's fine, I may ask for some sources on this later, but not now. My position is a lot more complex.The chicken's parents had hard eggs too. Indeed, its parents did, and so on and so on past its crocodillian/dinosaur ancestors and to its amphibious ancestors. Somewhere back here there was a soft egged laying creature that gave birth to a slightly harder egg. The genes for making slightly harder eggs survived for a few generations until a small number in population had them, let's say 5% for ease. Now this small number of the population has slightly harder egg casings. They don't leave the 'nest', they behave in the same manner as before.For some reason, this hard egg mutation conveys a survival advantage. Not difficult to see how, it is better protected from the environment and perhaps some predators.Let's also say that 25% of the soft layer's eggs do not survive past egg stage and that the advantage that the hard layer's eggs give such an advantage that only 23% of the eggs do not survive. This means that every generation the relative number of hard layers grows compared with the soft layers.This process repeats many many times, and eventually we have a population that doesn't lay harder than normal eggs, but actual hard eggs.If, your scenario were to occur (let us say that harder eggs was actually a disadvantage), then the harder egg section of the population would struggle to survive. It may survive despite of its disadvantage, but the chances are it won't.Now, if you have some information that could numerically show how the hard eggs are a significant enough a disadvantage as to merit their inevitable extinction (according to evolution), show me. Who gave you that idea? Let me quote some sources: I hope that clears up that misconception for you. Amusingly, that's what we generally see. Check out the fossil record... Ahhh, this is your problem. You are thinking in terms of X is a species that gives birth to Y that is a different species. It doesn't really work like that. One population gradually diverges from another, and over many many generations gradually loses its ability to reproduce with the other. There is some interesting stuff on ring species you might want to check out....basically species A can mate with species B. Species B an mate with species C. And species C can mate with species D. However, B and D can't reproduce with one another.So yeah, this child is not the only one of its kind reproductively, though it may have a novel genetic mutation that its parent does (in fact it probably does, we all do). I am not here to prove you wrong. I see you have some misconceptions about evolution. I am here to help you understand what the theory actually says. You want to ask questions? I'll try and answer them. You don't want to accept the theory? That's fine...I just hope you will know exactly what it is you are rejecting - it ain't the mickey mouse idea that seems to have been presented to you.Enjoy your stay here, and I believe that Caboose can go all the way!

If I think you are being rude, I'll let you know. Debate is a great way to learn new things. Your teacher had a great idea. Indeed, they can compare its young with others. It wouldn't look that different. I showed you two websites, one with a jungle fowl, one with a domestic chicken. Now, you will need to show a study that demonstrates parental rejection of slightly different looking offspring for your point to hold. Do you have any actual evidence that this occurs? That's fine. Remember that I showed you what the evolutionists actually say about evolution. Some of them are evolutionary scientists, they say their theory is about populations. If you think their theory does not say that, show it. You may have a skewed impression of evolution...I assume they don't. An individual may have a mutation which it then passes on to its offspring, through time this mutation is present in some percentage of
the population. It may be that this mutation provides a benefit, a survival or reproductive advantage to those in the population that have it. If this is so, then the number with this mutation will tend to increase until it is 'fixed' in the population. This is evolution. If you think evolution works differently, then one of us is wrong. I've given my evidence for this position (what the scientists that study the field say). You may give yours if you have it. Yes, domestic chickens came from jungle fowls...or that is the most commonly held opinion on the matter. As above - the one mutation is gradually disseminated throughout the population. It can be relied upon in the context I was referring to. It can be relied on to show that a hell of a lot of extinction happens. This is off topic. I believe it has been discussed here before, but here is a general rebuttal of the finds. Feel free to open a new thread to discuss it. Again, off topic here, but this has been addressed elsewhere. This discussion is still open so why not add your thoughts their? Unless its species is extinct it has lots of its own kind to reproduce. It is not reproductively isolated from its community. If the mutation caused it to be reproductively isolated, it would basically be sterile and would not pass its mutation on. Creature A1 has a child, creature B1. Creature A2 has a child, creature B2. Creature B1 has a mutation that may confer an advantage to the population. Creature B1 has babies with Creature B2. Now creatures C1, C2, C3 and C4 have babies with C5, C6, C7 and C8 (B3 and 4s babies). Now we have creatures D1-12. If this mutation is passed on to all this babies, we can see the mutation spreading through the population. Where this benefit may convey an advantage over others in the population that do not have it. In relative numbers, more with the mutation survive than those that don't so the relative amount with the mutation increases compared with those that don't, until there are more with than without...perhaps until all of them do. No probs. Anything I can do to help!

RAZD was a little sharp with you there. I'd get used to it, plenty of people will be like this with you here. You can either rise to them and involve yourself in an argument, or much respond curtly with something like 'If you don't want to discuss this with me, then don't'You raise a good point, if someone is chastised for asking questions being mistaken about something, then what's the use?Some are here to learn, some to teach, others are here to debate, to argue, to 'win', or to convert. Some are here for a combination of these. With that in mind, may I warn against this kind of thing: It will open a can of worms that will be hard to close...trust me, stand back from this for the moment - or you'll be jumped on by a dozen posters eager to prove you wrong, often in a less than pleasant way.

He said it in 'The Ancestor's Tale'Read more here

What has Parasomnium written so prolifically about with regards to the mind and its discontinuity?