Is that your explanation for how the egg evolved into a perfect cocoon for the chick to grow in?
Assume you're correct? Then, just transfer the same questions to reptiles...How did their eggs develop to the point of working properly without the species dying-off in the meantime? Then, did they tell chickens how to do it to transfer that knowledge once they had it figured-out?
You're completely missing the point. I'm quite aware that eggs are different for many different species be they fish, fowl or reptilian. However, all of them work perfectly for their species and had to from inception. How that could have "evolved" without the species dying-off is the question.
"How that could have "evolved" without the species dying-off is the question. "
- The answer is, "slowly".
Eggs probably evolved as a method similar to cell division, but for more complex organisms. These first eggs were probably not that different to the parent, just not fully matured.
Slowly the eggs became more adapted, increasing the embryo's chances of survival.
When life first came on land, they needed hard shells, yet they still develop like the old soft eggs before fertilization.
Things just mutate randomly, and hope for the best... oh wait, they can't hope as a species.... even our language betrays a inherent knowledge of an intelligence guiding things.
Actually evolution tends to be a process of trial and error. The more successful solutions to current environmental situations tend to get passed down to the next generation, and less successful ones generally get bred out.
If more than 1 solution is found and propagated separately to the point that those with the different solutions can't interbreed, separate species are formed.
If an environment changes faster than a species can find solutions, the species will die out.
I am fully aware of what Evoloution supporters claim are Evolution's mechanisms.
I'm just pointing out some problems with their language, and the flaw in their philosophy-- the main one being their begging the question when it comes to the "Why" of it all.
Language? As in linguistics? The evolution of language is slightly different than biological evolution, but the concepts are similar. You should do some research into comparative linguistics and the origin of languages.
The only answer to the "Why" question in evolutionary biology is "because it worked". It's the reason we have vestigial organs, adavisms, and various biological design flaws.
maybe the language needs to evolve better phrases to describe evolution, because I always hear things like, "need", "had to", and other phrases which connote a sort of "species soul" guiding each species to insure they are mutating towards "success" or higher order.
By the "Why", I meant that there should be a why to the higher order, and the rules of natural selection, which seems to "favor" higher order...
For lightning to form you NEED a positively charged earth to attract the negative charge that HAD TO have built up in the clouds. Does this imply that lightning has a soul? You are jumping to conclusions.
When it comes to evolution success is better, because failure means extinction. Being higher order does not guarantee success. The most successful organisms on the planet are bacteria, and they are definitely lower order, but "higher order" organisms live longer.
Question: Did pre-chickens taste like chicken?
Did the taste of Chicken evolve, too?
sketchbook1 2 years ago
Everything tastes like chicken.
Atriviality 2 years ago
Ignorant and ridiculous.
LetsTalkSexTalk 2 years ago
This is not your profile description page.
Rodnus 2 years ago
What does that mean?
Is that your explanation for how the egg evolved into a perfect cocoon for the chick to grow in?
Assume you're correct? Then, just transfer the same questions to reptiles...How did their eggs develop to the point of working properly without the species dying-off in the meantime? Then, did they tell chickens how to do it to transfer that knowledge once they had it figured-out?
Rodnus 3 years ago
Take your time. Do a little research and try and learn how many different animal classes lay eggs.
Now I want you to think about why aren't all eggs these perfect hard shelled cocoons.
Atriviality 3 years ago
You're completely missing the point. I'm quite aware that eggs are different for many different species be they fish, fowl or reptilian. However, all of them work perfectly for their species and had to from inception. How that could have "evolved" without the species dying-off is the question.
Rodnus 3 years ago
"How that could have "evolved" without the species dying-off is the question. "
- The answer is, "slowly".
Eggs probably evolved as a method similar to cell division, but for more complex organisms. These first eggs were probably not that different to the parent, just not fully matured.
Slowly the eggs became more adapted, increasing the embryo's chances of survival.
When life first came on land, they needed hard shells, yet they still develop like the old soft eggs before fertilization.
Atriviality 3 years ago
there is no "need" in evolution.
Things just mutate randomly, and hope for the best... oh wait, they can't hope as a species.... even our language betrays a inherent knowledge of an intelligence guiding things.
sketchbook1 2 years ago
Actually evolution tends to be a process of trial and error. The more successful solutions to current environmental situations tend to get passed down to the next generation, and less successful ones generally get bred out.
If more than 1 solution is found and propagated separately to the point that those with the different solutions can't interbreed, separate species are formed.
If an environment changes faster than a species can find solutions, the species will die out.
Atriviality 2 years ago
I am fully aware of what Evoloution supporters claim are Evolution's mechanisms.
I'm just pointing out some problems with their language, and the flaw in their philosophy-- the main one being their begging the question when it comes to the "Why" of it all.
sketchbook1 2 years ago
Language? As in linguistics? The evolution of language is slightly different than biological evolution, but the concepts are similar. You should do some research into comparative linguistics and the origin of languages.
The only answer to the "Why" question in evolutionary biology is "because it worked". It's the reason we have vestigial organs, adavisms, and various biological design flaws.
Atriviality 2 years ago
maybe the language needs to evolve better phrases to describe evolution, because I always hear things like, "need", "had to", and other phrases which connote a sort of "species soul" guiding each species to insure they are mutating towards "success" or higher order.
By the "Why", I meant that there should be a why to the higher order, and the rules of natural selection, which seems to "favor" higher order...
sketchbook1 2 years ago
For lightning to form you NEED a positively charged earth to attract the negative charge that HAD TO have built up in the clouds. Does this imply that lightning has a soul? You are jumping to conclusions.
When it comes to evolution success is better, because failure means extinction. Being higher order does not guarantee success. The most successful organisms on the planet are bacteria, and they are definitely lower order, but "higher order" organisms live longer.
Atriviality 2 years ago
Eggs existed long before chickens evolved.
Desertphile 3 years ago 2
so there it is... the EGG came first!
Cool, dude, that solves the age-old question.
sketchbook1 2 years ago