Chickens, eggs and Evolution (repost)

[Knightyme]

The gray-scale time-line is perhaps one of the best ways to define evolution in regards this is an X, this is not an X.

I must remember that one.

[percheron1654]

No matter how this question is analyzed, people still don't comprehend that the question itself has no relevance to reality.

It's a moot point. It proves nothing no matter how you answer it. Stop using it as a theorem.

[askegg]

I did - back on the 22 August 2007 when I posted this video.

[themanofearth]

Sorry to do this to ya man but you're wrong :-/

[askegg]

Invalid without providing a counter argument.

[themanofearth]

@askegg Fare to say. I mostly posted the previous comment because it had been two years since anyone posted to this video. The theory of evolution doesn't answer the question it makes the question a ridiculous one to ask. The question, "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" is about like asking, "Which link in a chain makes up the chain?" Forthcoming video probably in the morning cuz it's taking a LONG time to download: Chicken vs. Egg and a Facepalm

[askegg]

This *is* an old video and you are, or course, correct. The essential point is "what defines a chicken?" Answer this and you can reach a conclusion for this ridiculous question.

[themanofearth]

@askegg Well yes and no. In organisms that reproduce sexually a species is a group of orgnaisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring under normal conditions. There is no point where one species actually becomes another as far as evolutionary theory is concerned unless one is going to contend that there was a point at which an organism hatched that could not interbreed with it's parent and produce fertile offspring the egg nor the chicken could have come first.

[askegg]

None of that I disagree with. The point I was making was that however you define a chicken genetically, there will be a point at which the organism no longer qualifies - no matter where you draw the line.

This is pointing to the fact that we change species through time. Just as we would not be able to successfully breed with out distant ancestors or descendants. We are different species.

[themanofearth]

@askegg Well see even then how would you define what chicken is? Would you find a random chicken or try to find the "perfect" chicken, analyse it's genes and call that the genetic essence of chicken by which all chicken-ness is measured? (I'm laughing my ass off at the ridiculousness of my sentence the moment. Not at having to pose it... just at reading it aloud. :-P)

My video is up by the way: /watch?v=Uc8-Qii_Rcg

[askegg]

Exactly. A "chicken" is a group of genetically similar animals which can produce viable offspring - whatever that is. Again, the main point of this video was to demonstrate to IDiots that we can alter the genetic code to a point where we can no longer call the animal a "chicken".

I am now subscribed to you :)

[themanofearth]

@askegg Fare enough and ditto.

[themanofearth]

@askegg And by point I mean defined instant. The only measure of what is a chicken or not is if something can interbreed with what we call a chicken and produce fertile offspring: If it can't it's not what we call a chicken. The characteristics geno/phenotypical make virtually no difference.

[atang412]

I would also like to say, many evolutionists say that we descened from the australapificus (please forgive my spelling) but have we any proof? The "fossils" that we have found were all proven by scientists that they are only bits of monkey parts and human parts. We haven't seen anything that resembles a half man half ape.

[askegg]

What a strange thing to say - I think modern apes and monkeys look very much like we do.

What are you expecting? A man with a monkey head or something?

[atang412]

No, they don't. Our genes and the apes genes are completelt different. We are hardly 1% alike. Our only and closest rememblance would be the family behaviour. Nothing else. Our skeletons are different, and as well as our cells. What i was expecting would be something like a hunched up back and maybe ape-like sjull, not like what u said. And so far, nothing is like that. After all, you say we came from apes.

[askegg]

Are you serious? We share approximate 98% of our DNA with the great apes. Look it up. We look very similar, sure there are differences but they are nowhere near as great as you may imagine.

Let me ask you this - how different is an ape from a sea slug? It seem you get a lot of bang for your buck in the last 1% of DNA.

I did not say we came from apes - we share a common ancestor.

[atang412]

Hello? Please look it up on a non-evolutionist site please. WE do not look similar for the last time. Unless u;ve rlly seen some1 that ugly be4. Do females look like a female ape? I doubt it. Can u really say that someonle like your mom look like a mommy gorilla? NO! Fine. say we DID come from a common ancesestor, who would that be?

[askegg]

Are you 10 or something?

We look much more like apes than zebras or octopus. Are we so similar that we are indistinguishable? No, but we are separate species.

We do not have a living example of the intermediate species, but the fossil evidence and the DNA strongly suggest them.

In your theory - please explain why the last 1% of DNA can move organisms from an ape to a sea slug.

[Drewdood]

These are excerpts from a longer lecture from Dr. Ken Miller, who is a very respectable scientist in the field of microbiology and is also a theist.

Apes and Humans: watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M

Transitional Fossils: watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY

Full Lecture (I suggest you watch it): watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

[atang412]

I would like to ask one BIG question. How come we havent't found a fossil that is half chicken, and half something else. You evolutionists people say (not being disrespectful) that everything came from a single cell which blossomed in the ocean. How come we haven't found anything that is, lest say, half fish and half chicken (or another species of bird)?

[askegg]

You are comparing two modern versions of species. Evolution says all animals have common ancestry and the evidence supports this view. The phylogeny has not been violated - if it was *just once* the theory would be destroyed.

[atang412]

Could u please describe your evidence, because only thing i heard(dont take this badly) was maybe and might.

[whirlpoolzend]

Where do you think Blaise Pascal would have put his money?

[stickhorse1134]

depends on how you define the egg, is the egg defined by what organism produced it? or by what organism was produced from it? lol. at any rate the organisms on either side of your line would be virtually indistinguishable from eachother.

[MissAnthropic66]

YYYYYEEEHHHHH..i was right Ex ovo omnia!

[Bluelnfinity]

agreed, spontanious generation defies logic... btw do you crack open your soft-boiled eggs on the little or big end?^_^

[askegg]

I prefer to open my boiled chicken ovulations from the pointy end.

[Antitheistguy]

five Stars, and happy that I subscribed!

[bryantulsa]

Eggcellent.

[premed411]

A clear "10" for cinematography! Would you please briefly describe the program or programs you used to create such elegant graphics?

Btw, which came first, the Andrew or the Skegg?

[askegg]

This is entirely a Keynote 08 presentation. The first upload I just posted the quicktime export, but the animations were not translated by YT properly. This version used iMovie08 and kept them intact - go figure.

The more advanced stuff is done in Final Cut, but I plan to do the next one using Motion3.

Now - tell me how you get the screen stuff on your videos :P

[premed411]

I use SnapZ Pro X w/movies. Its inexpensive and very easy to use--you can do a bunch of other handy things with it too. It runs in the background--its a small app--and you can summon it with whatever key combination you choose.

[askegg]

Ahh - of course. I use the same program to record screen casts and demos. I had not thought about using it for Youtube.