You assume that this egg could in fact survive. You have no idea what it came from. Its parent could be unnerved by this strange thing. Of course if this thing lays eggs then this egg will greatly differ from the others of its kind. It might also take longer to hatch than other of this creature's eggs. Predators may damage the egg. The parents would have to incubate it correctly on their first try. You see it is far more plausible for the creationist's "The chicken came first." That is one of the main problems with evolution. It assumes that everything has the knowledge it needs and that their is no trial and error process.If life wasn't meant to be lived then why is there death?
It assumes that everything has the knowledge it needs and that their is no trial and error process.
Huh? The only one here assuming anything is you. You've just posted a post filled with assumptions that you didn't even bother to try to support.
Unnerved? Greatly different? Predators? Do you have any support for these ideas or are we just supposed to toss out the best-supported theory in science based only on your little game of what-if?
You're not exactly knocking them out of the park, Igor. Allow me to welcome you to the forum but you need to realize that you've jumped into a small pool with some big fish. A lot of us are intimately involved in scientific research based on evolution; some of us are even published experts on the subject. (Not me.) It's pretty obvious that a lot of your knowledge about evolution is flawed. Whether or not you improve that situation is going to depend on whether or not you are going to allow yourself to be informed by people that you currently disagree with.
Based on what-ifs? All evolution is is a game of what-ifs. Unnerved means the parents are not sure what they have and the may kill it. How would you feel knowing you gave birth to something new? Your instincts would tell you to destroy it. Also there are many predators that eat eggs. This parent may give birth to very hard-shelled young so that it can leave the nest. Instinct will tell it that it can leave the nest. Then predators may inspect and consume at their own will. Greatly diffrent means this is a whole new species. Are you trying to say this creature has given birth to something new and it will be a small difference? You ask if I have support and claim this is one of the greatest theories of all time. But what evolutionists fail to take into consideration is the instincts of animals. You also say my knowledge is flawed, which may be true, but all evolution is flawed. This chicken egg is going to hatch as a new species in a world that has never before seen it. Do you expect it to be able to live? Does "survival of the fittest" suddenly have no relevance? Please think up a good answer to this.
Unnerved means the parents are not sure what they have and the may kill it.
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.
How would you feel knowing you gave birth to something new?
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?
...Your instincts would tell you to destroy it.
I hope your instincts don't tell you to do that...my instincts would be to protect my child from the world.
Also there are many predators that eat eggs. This parent may give birth to very hard-shelled young so that it can leave the nest. Instinct will tell it that it can leave the nest. Then predators may inspect and consume at their own will.
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.
This chicken egg is going to hatch as a new species in a world that has never before seen it. Do you expect it to be able to live?
You are thinking of individuals. We are talking about populations here, and the speciation is a gradual process that takes place in a population.
Does "survival of the fittest" suddenly have no relevance?
It has a lot of relevance. That is why hard shelled eggs survived. That is why the domestic chicken survived.
What you are taking as instincts are human feelings. Your red jungle fowl has instincts that tell it what its young should look like. Also there are others of this species that may kill this chicken. About predators, I am a little confused. I was saying that if this creature gives birth to very hard-shelled young so that it can leave the nest whenever it chooses. The chicken egg may be noticeably softer and thus a much larger chance to be eaten. In evolution you must think in individuals. If you think in mass evolution you would most likely have an extinction. You must consider the fact that this is the only one of its species. If no others are born in the chicken's lifetime then how will its species continue? You will probably answer this by saying it will reproduce with the kind of its parents. What then when its reproduction system changes? Will another with the same system be born all of a sudden? It seems like you are thinking of this as a change that adapted perfectly with no consideration to evolution's mechanism,mutation. Please continue to try to prove me wrong.
Your red jungle fowl has instincts that tell it what its young should look like.
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?
About predators, I am a little confused. I was saying that if this creature gives birth to very hard-shelled young so that it can leave the nest whenever it chooses. The chicken egg may be noticeably softer and thus a much larger chance to be eaten
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.
In evolution you must think in individuals.
Who gave you that idea? Let me quote some sources:
Dr Michael Lynch writes:
Evolution is a population-level process, and the underlying philosophy of our research is that “nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of population genetics.” Link
Evolution happens writes:
[Evolution] is the change in the gene pools of living populations of species which occurs over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. A gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Link
Douglas J Futuyma writes:
Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. Link
Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. Link
I hope that clears up that misconception for you.
If you think in mass evolution you would most likely have an extinction.
Amusingly, that's what we generally see. Check out the fossil record...
You must consider the fact that this is the only one of its species.
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).
Please continue to try to prove me wrong.
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!
I am sorry that this seems rude, I merely am doing a report on evolution and my teacher advised me to argue in a couple of forums. About how the young should look like, the fowl should be able to compare its young with others. It is not a bare assertion. As individuals, I must argue with you there. Evolution must start with individuals. All those scientists are saying that a group of creatures appeared many years ago. These chickens had to start somewhere. A clutch, yes, it does work in population then. But what of the creatures that only bear one young? Did a bunch of animals all suddenly have the same young that was different from their parents? As for the fossil record, it can not be relied upon. It Texas there is a river clearly showing humans walking with dinosaurs. When the rock was excavated they found more footprints from the same time period. I am sorry to bring it into this, but in the Bible in the book of Job, he clearly describes a Brachiosaurus and Plesiosaurus. As of this reproduction, to advance farther it needs to have more of its own kind to reproduce to the next stage. Here is an example: Creatures A have young showing 50% of their charachteristics. Creature B, the young, has nothing to mate with of its own kind so has young with A. Their young has 75% of the charachteristics. This one mates with A so on and so forth. As for the hard-shelled eggs, thank you for showing me that idea.If life wasn't meant to be lived then why is there death?
I am sorry that this seems rude, I merely am doing a report on evolution and my teacher advised me to argue in a couple of forums.
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.
About how the young should look like, the fowl should be able to compare its young with others. It is not a bare assertion.
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?
As individuals, I must argue with you there.
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.
Evolution must start with individuals.
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.
These chickens had to start somewhere.
Yes, domestic chickens came from jungle fowls...or that is the most commonly held opinion on the matter.
But what of the creatures that only bear one young? Did a bunch of animals all suddenly have the same young that was different from their parents?
As above - the one mutation is gradually disseminated throughout the population.
As for the fossil record, it can not be relied upon.
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.
It Texas there is a river clearly showing humans walking with dinosaurs. When the rock was excavated they found more footprints from the same time period.
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.
I am sorry to bring it into this, but in the Bible in the book of Job, he clearly describes a Brachiosaurus and Plesiosaurus
Again, off topic here, but this has been addressed elsewhere. This discussion is still open so why not add your thoughts their?
As of this reproduction, to advance farther it needs to have more of its own kind to reproduce to the next stage.
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.
Creatures A have young showing 50% of their charachteristics. Creature B, the young, has nothing to mate with of its own kind so has young with A
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.
As for the hard-shelled eggs, thank you for showing me that idea.
Ah! You did not refer to the plesiousaur. If you have actually read the Bible through you will see that it does descrirbe a brachiosaur. Yes they did excavate the rock. Many evolutionists have stated the same thing you state now. They also dated it with the same equipment they date fossils. So if that is flawed then so is evolution's million years.
Hmmm....so teaching a young mind is too good for you? First, I said I was sorry if it seemed rude. I give you the courtesy of manners so maybe you could do me the same thing. But if you cannot teach someone who is curious then maybe evolution should not be researched. If you can not tell the people who try to learn it then why research it? If the public can not be told the meaning of addition then maybe math should be destroyed. As for knowing the theory, I have researched it. From all points of few. I have read Scientific Creationism and Origin Of The Species. You speak of learning the difference between faith and science, but are you aware that evolution is as much a religion as creationism? Creationism actually has a better concept of scientific laws than evolution.
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:
You speak of learning the difference between faith and science, but are you aware that evolution is as much a religion as creationism? Creationism actually has a better concept of scientific laws than evolution.
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.