|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 05/28/2006 : 03:30:49 [Permalink]
|
Did you know, verlch, that the vast majority of species that have existed on this earth did not, and do not today, use eggs in any form to reproduce? Indeed, they reproduce asexually. That's right; no boys & girls, no senior proms, no back-seat bundling, no doses of clap and chancre-on-the-anchor amongst the graduating class.
Don't believe it? Then fucking look it up, you lazy blatherskite!
"No atheists in foxholes" was a moronic phrase coined in the Pacific Theater of WW-II by Lt. Col. William J. Clear, reputed to be an otherwise excellent soldier who only occasionally succumbed to such full-of-shitness.
See how easy that was? Took me about 3 minutes to get the straight skinny on the 'foxhole atheists' gibber.
I have known theists who added the 'a' to the term whilst in the foxhole.... I suggest that you pay a visit to the VA Hospital on this Memorial Day. Those guys and gals would appreciate the company and you might learn something.
But the point I'm trying to make here is this: if you refuse to research, you will never be more than an object of ridicule in any, sober discussion on any topic. It is best to know whereof you speak before running your mouth into the idiot zone, rather than try ride that fool back out after it's got you bogged down to the door handles. Is it not so?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2006 : 10:45:49 [Permalink]
|
Hi all. I'm new here but wasn't born yesterday.
Two definitions of egg are being used in this discussion:
(1) Gamete from female
(2) Eggshell with contents; those contents only have a chance to develop into a functioning member of the species if the contents include a fertilized egg (female gamete + male gamete) & if the eggshell w/ contents can be adequately protected from external environmental stressors
quote:
The egg is external, in its own enviroment, until it hatches.
After the eggshell and its contents ('egg') are 'laid' (passed out from the body) then yes it's external. The gamete ('egg') is from the (internal) ovarian tissue.
quote:
There is nothing enviromental to effect it to develope the egg out side of the egg, for what need would that serve?
Two categories of events which can affect the development of the egg, that is the development of and survival chances of the developing organism:
(1) Cell division, occurs at high rate, requires replication of genetic material at high rate; occasional errors in transcription occur - not 'serving a need' but just random events. Some of these are fatal to the developing organism, some are phenotypically silent, a few result in some characteristics of this organism being different from its parents and any siblings...'better' or 'worse' implies judgment, but higher likelihood of survival to reproduce & pass that new genetic variation on to descendents => increasing prevalence of that new genetic variation in subsequent generations of that species (or, development of a new species if proto-chicken has become chicken with that change).
(2) Environmental stressors on the eggshell and its contents. Eggshells have to be strong but breakable, porous to oxygen but not toxins, etc. Some have to be kept warm (think penguins), some develop at ambient temperature (think sea turtles). One example of the delicate balance: thin eggshells are more likely to break early on...but thick eggshells are harder for the developed baby to get out of when the time is right. In either case, the contents of the eggshell don't survive, that organism doesn't become an adult & reproduce & pass on the genes for that type of eggshell.
quote:
How is the enviroment going to effect it, inside the egg, to make it evolve? It can't. The egg develps inside the mother.
See above. The environment doesn't 'make it evolve.' Genetic errors provide new genetic variations, then survival stressors on the fertilized egg as it develops into a young member of the species in its eggshell (and after it hatches) weed out those members of the species that just can't hack it. Generation after generation, small phenotypic changes (and maybe sometimes big phenotypic changes) resulting in differential likelihood of survivial and successful reproduction given the environmental stressors in that niche change the species, 'making it evolve'.
quote:
Why don't cats have eggs? Or women for that matter.
Cats and women do have eggs (female gametes), they just don't lay eggs with eggshells - eggshell not needed, uterus & adult's abdominal cavity & pelvis protect the developing young internally.
quote:
Its an evloutionary nightmare for eggs to be in the realm of reality.
Survival is a struggle for every organism. The balance of environmental stressors and the organism's protective measures (whether from mom's eggshell, or own bodily structure and functions as determined by genes, or even the behavior of self, parents, or social unit) affect how likely that organism is to survive to pass on its genetic material - that's reality, that's the process of natural selection.
quote:
All of creation has happened by accident, you say. This is obviously by design.
Accident = unplanned event. So, yes, by accident, not by design. But that doesn't mean totally randomly. Genetic mutations happen, frequently. Environmental stressors happen, essentially constantly, though that won't necessarily be apparent when observing an organism in its niche...the niche for which its characteristics provide survival advantage.
quote:
How then would one exist, without being born in an egg?
There would be no reason to have babies like humans, and then evolve an egg, none.
Did you hear anyone claiming that live-bearing mammals evolved into egg-laying mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, or invertebrates? Not that it couldn't possibly happen if there were significant environmental stressors that provided survival benefit to eggshells then egg-laying without killing off any intermediary organisms, but it does seem unlikely. But, of course, one would say there was no reason for animals to bear their live young, if all that currently existed (all that we knew) was the egg-laying method of getting the young-uns born.
quote:
You guys overlook the complexity of everything, fine, do so, but this smacks of a large scale cover-up.
Too many questions and no one to answer them.
This is so sad, it's funny. How about intelligent design as a large scale cover-up overlooking the rich complexity of genetics and natural selection by postulating a sentient, powerful alien force that said "abracadabra!" and voila here we all are. Good thinking on their part to plant some writings that would distract some of us into thinking that some guy in the sky named God designed it all.  |
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2006 : 11:02:30 [Permalink]
|
| Welcome to SFN Zebra! |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2006 : 11:05:20 [Permalink]
|
Very well written, Zebra. Thanks for posting. And welcome to SFN.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2006 : 12:57:01 [Permalink]
|
Excellent post Zebra.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2006 : 14:08:53 [Permalink]
|
Well said, Zebra! Very well said indeed...
And welcome to SFN!
With your kind indulgence, I'd like to add that the amniotic egg is what freed some amphibians, reptiles/birds, and ultimatly mammals in the form of early monotremes from dependence upon water to reproduce.
Otherwise, we'd all still be starting out as the latter-day version of a Devonian tadpole.
Again, excellent comments! I look forward to more... 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2006 : 15:14:53 [Permalink]
|
Zebra, indeed you were not born (or hatched) yesterday. Welcome, and thank you for the fine post!
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2006 : 18:10:47 [Permalink]
|
I'd like to remark that I'd originally posted this thread's beginning because I saw the issue, and even the quoted study, as an amusing sidelight. I'd seriously considered placing it in the Humor forum. I suspect the study itself was done largely with tongue in cheek.
I expected people here to take either "pro-chicken" or "pro-egg" stances, out of a sense of intellectual play. But I had no idea this subject would actually bring out our local YEC crowd and such deadly serious debate. I don't mind the results, however, even though they have surprised me.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2006 : 22:37:48 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for the welcomes to SFN, and glad my first post went over OK. 
I hoped I wasn't simply rehashing old posts on evolution.
Mmm, re-hash browns and eggs, sounds like a pretty tasty breakfast!
Edited to add: And thanks, filthy, for adding the diagram of the amniotic sac.
|
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
| Edited by - Zebra on 05/28/2006 22:39:55 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2006 : 00:05:38 [Permalink]
|
Going back to the original question (how may threads are verlch and bill going to hi-jack?), I find that it REALLY is a, well, misunderstanding of evolution. Defining evolution as a change in allele frequencies in a population over generations, one can put forth the following argument:
Evolution works on populations, not individuals. Chicken-eggs evolved from proto-chicken-eggs. If you accept these premises, you have to come to the conclusion that a mutation in a single egg or chicken does not constitute evolution. You, therefore, also have to accept that there is no mutation in a single individual (be that a proto-chicken or a proto-egg) that can turn a proto-chicken-egg into an egg (technically I suppose you could if the population of chickens was really small, but let's not go there, shall we???). Therefore, when the team made up of a geneticist, philosopher and chicken farmer say:quote:
The living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken it would develop into, he said.
"Therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg," he added. "So, I would conclude that the egg came first."
, they are wrong.
P.S. I would dearly love to see them name the one single mutation that would separate a proto-chicken-egg from a chicken-egg. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2006 : 01:10:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
P.S. I would dearly love to see them name the one single mutation that would separate a proto-chicken-egg from a chicken-egg.
That's why this is a philosophical question.
I remember an exchange on MTV's the Real World. A fish had died in the tank and begun to rot pretty extensively, almost to the point where it was just a shapeless white mass. One person commented (I'm paraphrasing) "That fish is heavily decomposed." The other responded "Dude, it's not even a fish any longer." The first responded "So at what point did it cease to be a fish?"
Determining the exact moment where a "true" chicken egg came into being is equally subjective, in my opinion.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 05/29/2006 01:11:55 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2006 : 03:46:41 [Permalink]
|
All philosophers are full of shit and I despise them, each and every one. A pox upon philosophical questions and the endless, nonsensical debates that their not-quite-answers produce!
Chicken & egg; intelligent design; how many angels can fornicate on the head of a pin; all are utterly meaningless in any, practical context and therefore unworthy of discussion beyond richly deserved derision. Fie upon the whole lot!
Of great interest however, is the development of the amniotic egg and the thin, delicate membrane that became a tough shell; making it possible for vertebrate life to invade lands far from the seas and lakes of their origins. This opened up a tremendous number of ecological niches to be filled as those earliest of terrestrial explorers sought their fortunes ashore and inland. And, in due course, speciation occurred -- are you paying attention, verlch? I swear to Quetzacoatl, if I were a nun, your knuckles would stay raw! And Bill's as well!
So the real question, or at least the one that makes any sense, is not, "which came first?" but "what species first evolved the amniotic egg, thereby making colonization of the land feasible and ultimately resulting in thee and me? I rather doubt that this genesis species, or more likely, the several of them, will ever be discovered. At the beginning of the Devonian, they didn't exist, and by the end of it, there were a plenitude of them, notably the thecodonts -- by the bye, I'm lazy this morning and this is entirely off the top of my head. I expect correction if I am in error.
I think that before the membrane became a shell, the 'egg tooth' developed. This tiny spike (not really a tooth at all) on the rostral area of the head helped the neonate deal with an ever toughening membrane. It was, and is, used to make a starting slit in the shell. Having observed reptiles hatch out numerous times, I will state that they escape, rather than hatch. Getting out of that shell is not an easy task, such as it is for aquatic larvae like tadpoles.
So, neither the chicken nor the egg, but the egg tooth came first -- evolution once again cobbling something up from bits and pieces laying about an untidy shop, rather like some inept inventor.
But what a wonder that egg is! It's an entirely self-contained, life support system that gives the embryo everything it requires to develop into an neonate with no further nourishing on the parent's part. And what is equally amazing are the methods of incubation. I won't go into it very far because it's a topic that deserves it's own thread (wanna write that one, Dave? It'd be a good'n). I will merely give an interesting example:
There is a bird called the 'bush turkey' (don't have the Latin to hand) in, I think, Australia, that laboriously builds a huge mound of dirt and forest floor compost, In this mound, a single egg is laid and buried. The parents constantly regulate the temperature of this nest by digging off the top of it or putting more material on. They also defend it against such predators as monitor lizards. Ultimately, the chick must dig itself out, and when it does, it's on it's own. Tough bird, eh?
So, let us simply ignore the "which came first" silliness; regulate it to those with nothing better to do than confuse the easily confused.
Someone pass the Tabasco please, for after all, an egg without Tabasco is nothing more than another dead chicken...
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2006 : 05:33:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Someone pass the Tabasco please, for after all, an egg without Tabasco is nothing more than another dead chicken...
Amen brother! |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2006 : 10:41:21 [Permalink]
|
Quoting Hawks: quote:
Evolution works on populations, not individuals.
Pet peeve alert - evolution is not a force. It's a consquence, or a process. And it has to work on individuals within a population to have any affect on the population as a whole, but that may be splitting hairs.
quote:
Defining evolution as a change in allele frequencies in a population over generations one can put forth the following argument...[see line quoted above, and section quoted below]
This is a big-picture definition that describes the result but not the process. When talking about how species X actually might have evolved into species X', seems to me you've got to use a definition like this: Evolution is a process that results in a change in the allele frequencies in a population. (I'd add that the different alleles for the gene(s) in question must have different phenotypic manifestation, however subtle, but for some reason this consideration isn't part of most definitions by biologists, see this for definitions.)
The results of the process is apparent over generations in a population as a whole, but the process has its origins in two places which can only work at the level of individuals within the population:
(1) genetic variation in genetic material which will be passed to future generations. This can only occur at the level of individual organisms (actually, at the molecular level, at ATGC bases). It will only be manifest in an individual multi-celled individual organism if the genetic change occurs during early in the process of going from a one-celled stage to a multi-cellular stage; otherwise, it will be first manifest in those offspring which inherit the change. Gene changes which are not fatal (or severely disabling) most often result in subtle phenotypic changes, but subtlety is not a requirement.
(2) Niche-specific environmental stressors which impact the efficacy with which genetic material is passed on to future generations. This stressor is applied to all members of a species in that niche (say, on all finches on one of the Galapagos Islands, but not necessarily on all finches on all of the Galapagos Islands).
It's usually phrased as stressors which "affect survival" but affecting survival is only one route by which reproductive efficacy can be selected for or against. For example, difficulty accessing adequate food in a niche may not actually kill the adults in a group - in fact, if it does & too many die, that species will not survive in that niche & will "die out". But even subtle differential in the fertility of adults with food-acquiring characteristic A vs. those with food-acquiring characteristic B results in changes in the frequency of alleles coding for food-acquiring characteristics A and B in one generation. A single generation. That's the level of individuals.
Under the influence of the same environmental stressor, over generations the allele coding for the more beneficial characteristic will increase in frequency, & vice versa for the less beneficial characteristic (whether they are 2 alleles for the same gene, or alleles for different genes). But if environmental stressors change over time, as in this example, the characteristics apparent in the population may ebb and flow without progressive changes towards a fixed new characteristic (whether or not that defines a new species).
quote:
Chicken-eggs evolved from proto-chicken-eggs. If you accept these premises, you have to come to the conclusion that a mutation in a single egg or chicken does not constitute evolution. You, therefore, also have to accept that there is no mutation in a single individual (be that a proto-chicken or a proto-egg) that can turn a proto-chicken-egg into an egg (technically I suppose you could if the population of chickens was really small, but let's not go there, shall we???).
Gotta define the characteristics which determine which individual is a proto-chicken and which is a chicken, so that you can look at a population and determine whether it is made up of proto-chickens or chickens. I think someone has already said we don't have such a definition. The allele frequency for chicken-ness progressively increases in the population if chickens have a reproductive ("survival") advantage over proto-chickens, but if the essential qualities of chicken-ness are not based on a single phenotypic marker determined by a single allele, there will be intermediate stages in which the population has characteristics of both. That is, there will be intermediate stages in which individual members of the population have characteristics of both. We can have a naming contest for those intermediate stages if anyone wants. 
Edit: added qualifier "most" before "definitions" before 1st link |
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
| Edited by - Zebra on 05/29/2006 10:49:49 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
