Which came first?

Howstuffworks.com

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by S2KFanatic
[B]Which came first?

Howstuffworks.com

 

Now you've gone and done it...! This is something that interests me a great deal.

I think there has to be a clear distinction between cross-species genetic mutation and within-species adaptation. There is no real science that I know of (and no, I'm not a scientist) that supports the concept of "things" evolving/mutating into completely OTHER "things." To the best of my knowledge (take it for what it's worth), there is nothing that supports the idea of say, a lizard "evolving" into a cow via genetic mutation. Yes, creatures seem to evolve to ADAPT to environmental conditions, but evolving into a completely different species is just something that is too far-fetched and unsupported by science.

I could go on and on about this...but I digress. But the answer is obvious, the chicken came first, then it made the eggs that bore other chickens. Funny how those chickens didn't evolve/mutate into snails or sharks.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gregstevens
[B]Now you've gone and done it...!

 

Duh, The egg has always come first. I have never understood why people got so confused about it. Simple and obvious.

What ever the first chicken came from (evolution or creation - take your pick) it started as an egg.

 

the chicken came first. actuality comes before potentiality.

 

Actually the cockerel came first, then the hen conceived, then there was the egg, then there was a baby chicken

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gregstevens
[B]Now you've gone and done it...!

 

The explainer contradicted himself in his own explanation. He states that the chicken came from the pre-chicken. "Pre-chicken" is a misnomer. It's just what the chicken came from. Asexual reproduction was around long before sexual reproduction. You cannot have an egg in asexual reproduction. The "pre-chicken" was asexual. We shouldn't get hung up on the word "chicken". "Creatures" existed before the arrival of eggs. These creatures evolved over time to become male and female, get together and make an egg. So, these "creatures" were there first.
Conclusion: the chicken came first.

 

Naishou, I would like to see proof of a situation where life came from non-life. If you can prove that to me, then I will believe that we all evolved from a single cell of something or other. While I'm not a religious person, I do believe that all that surrounds us is the result of a creator, not a haphazard result of random genetic mutation and evolution. And I find it amusing that people think that all of this could be the result of it somehow evolving itself into existence. I have a proposition for you: the faith that I have in this being the result of a creator is surpassed by the faith of people who believe this is the result of evolution/genetic mutation. Take this as an example to make my case...take an ordinary wrist watch, take it apart piece by piece until it is broken down into its individual components. Put all the pieces into a jar and shake the jar until the watch is back together completely and keeping perfect time. How long would that take? Or is it impossible...? The chances of that happening are extremely remote, yet people believe in the extremely remote chances that ALL of this, I mean the tress, the animals, the clouds, the universe and galaxies, all of it, exists as the result of an almost imperceptibly huge number of conditions which had to exist in order to bring life and all that surrounds it into existence as we know it today. Yet, it's difficult, if not impossible, to picture a simple disassembled wrist watch coming back together from shaking it in a jar.

Also, Naishou, you cannot disarm my argument by saying "and no "God created them"" as that is what I believe. At the end of the day, he who has greater faith will be the one who believes that we are the result of evolution, as there are huge holes in the "theories" of evolution, therefore requiring tremendous leaps of faith. And I have yet to see an expiriment in which life is created from non-life. Neither can prove that the other is correct or incorrect, this is a topic that is a personal belief, it has to do with "faith tolerance" if you will...I happen to believe in something that only faith can explain, as science cannot, yet I believe that it takes even MORE faith to believe in the science that you say proves our existence as the result of evolution and/or mutation. And as I said before, I'm not discrediting the concept of "adaptation." I believe that over vast spans of time, creatures make certain adaptations to their environment. I have yet to hear evidence of one species becoming another throughout this same time span...