What came first the Chicken or the egg?

Egg.

The egg could be a mutated egg from another animal.

I can believe that .Kinda leads to the idea of evolution or maybe the other idea .I do wonder what the chicken egg will mutate into over time. :)

Evolution is a fact, easily proven.

I agree what was that other thoery people are always debating explains life and all the changes?

Big bang theory: The theory behind an event which lead to the formation of the universe.

I wouldn't call the big bang theory a fact, not that anyone did. It's just the best theory we have that fits most of what we currently know of the universe.
I think evolution could also be looked at this way. It fit's most of what we know but doesn't prove everything we need it to for it to be called fact. Doesn't mean the proof isn't there, just we havn't found it yet.

Evolution can be proven.

That statement doesnt prove evolution. If it is proven i would like to read about it, got a link that provides the proof?

Evolution IS proven. Some birds lost their wings and are flightless. Proof of evolution. But its still a bird. Not a frog.

Big bang theory is bullshit though.

If they did evolve into frogs that would be proof. ;)
Did these birds have wings in the first place or do you just assume they did. If they did was it an adaptation within a species or a whole new species of bird altogether?

I'm not saying i don't believe in evolution, i believe it's the best theory going atm. It is just that, from what i've seen, a theory, our best explanation of how life got to where it is now. i do wanna see proof that it is a fact though if it currently exists.

Random unsubstantiated comments with no scientific back up won't prove it. :P

What better theory is there currently than the big bang theory, if it's bullshit?

Its a bird that exists on the mainland and on an island like heaps far out. The mainland has wings the island ones dont. It is adaptarion within a species sure. But thats all evolution is.

Problem is... Its all from genetic mutations. Which loses something every time. Bird lost wings. Some fish at the bottom of the ocean dont have eyes coz its too dark to see anyway. Monkeys turning into humans? Thats gaining something. Isnt possible.

And im a christian. I believe in God and creation.

Just google about viruses... Strongest will survive.

Most people COMPLETELY misunderstand evolution. Evolution is not: You sit by a river long enough and you'll get webbed feet. You adapt... Wrong.

Evolution is, at its simplest -- genetic mutation. There are constantly genetic mutations, some people are born with abnormal things, webbed feet for example or even worse, born like Nesquick.

So what happens is, when two creatures BOTH have the same genetic mutation (which is where it is extremely rare, because the mutation in itself is rare, and then for it to happen again, is even more rare) and they breed, their off spring can have the same mutation.

If this genetic mutation is something like, a fickle heart, then it dies, and basically, that's no use to anything...

If it's something useful, like webbed feet and that creature has to travel across water, a lot, to survive. Then naturally, this creature will find it EASIER to live than the others. Thus, when it meets another creature like itself, their children are stronger and better for survival.

At it's simplest:

Pretend there is a wall with a square hole in it. To survive, a creature must go through this hole...

Problem! There are only spherical creatures. Every million creatures, one creature has a baby diamond. That's no use... He can't go through the hole. Now pretend every billion creatures, they have a mutated baby which is actually a sphere.

Another billion creatures later... Another sphere. Great, two spheres on the other side of the wall. Now, they breed, more spherical babies. That specie is then stronger, better, it hasn't really adapted though... Not like a gecko changes its colour.

This is a bit of a poor example, because genetic mutations won't make you have a baby elephant instead of a human. Mutations are generally smaller things, however, evolution isn't about one thing happening just the once. It could be: better feet, slightly stronger legs, etc etc.

It is COMPLETELY impossible for evolution not to exist.



Who created God?

Nobody created God. And I don't feel like a religious discussion, because that's just up to faith, which cannot be proven or disproven.

I agree that that is indeed a bad example, with the shapes. There is no reason for the sphere (ball shape btw) is more able to survive than the circle. Or a diamond. So there is no reason for them to have stronger babies and become more than the circles.... Just because there is a hole in the wall, means nothing... We can't fly just because there is a mountain we can't climb, can we?

And I don't believe that even over billions of adaptations of 1 in billion chances, an animal will change species from say a fish to a bird. It's just not practical. They live in the water. Why would they need to become a bird? It's not helping them. Their food is in the water... And monkeys into humans. You stick a human and a monkey in the jungle. The monkey is more able to survive.... Why the hell would he need to change into a human?

http://www.physorg.com/news154027625....27625.html


If you don't want a religious discussion, why did you mention you're a Christian? You can believe in a God without religion having to be brought up. What does God have to do with this anyway? Or are you saying we've actually been on this Earth since day one? Did Adam and Eve have a belly button? If the forbidden fruit wasn't eaten, would women not menstruate?

You just said you believe in creation, it's fallacious to then say nothing created God. If something can not be proven or disproven, then how can you believe in it? Again, completely illogical.


No, but if a baby is born that has mutated legs, and they can climb faster - this makes it easier for them to reach the top of the mountain. Thus, they are more likely to survive.


My argument wasn't that we were born fish. It was that evolution exists. Thus, strawman fallacy... It also looks like you misread what I said. I said smaller changes happen. They won't just turn into a different animal.

There are lots of reasons for changes:
A predator in the area. Climate changes. Just to name a few.

If there was a mass amount of tigers that started chewing into everyone, and someone's baby had a mutation, causing them to be able to breath under water. Providing there are no sharks around, don't you think they'd have a higher chance of living in the water, than near by where they are tigers?

I disagree with the Darwin's theory of evolution. The problem is that he took extrapolation to an extreme and this is how the theory of evolution got started.

On the Galapagos islands, Darwin noticed finches on different islands had different beaks. He imagined that they all were the exact same at one point and after many generations the beaks adapted to the different food sources appropriate for each island. Darwin was right that species have the ability to adapt and change to their environment.

A good example of this is the industrial revolution. London, during their industrial revolution most moths were white with black specks to match the bark on trees. After the industrial revolution the industries started burning coal, the smog slowly turned the trees black. Anyways, the moths that live in the forests of England today are black with yellow specks. (I've never been to UK, but I learned about this in a bio class).

When Darwin said that species have the ability to change and adapt to their environment he was right, but wrong when he used that data (through extrapolation) to try and support his theory of evolution. He started saying that since species have the ability to change, they should be able to change into different species. In other words Darwin is saying if a population of finches can develop different beaks through several generations, why can't they also develop wings, heads, bodies, and feet so that they change into eagles? The theory of evolution was founded through the exploitation of extrapolation. Darwin took a small amount of data and tried to make a huge extrapolation with it. A careful scientist will only make small extrapolations based on large sets of data.

He took small changes he observed in different types of animals and then extrapolated them into huge changes. The finches on different islands adapted to their environment through their beaks and feather color. These changes are very small compared to the kinds of changes required to turn a finch into a completely different species of bird.

Extrapolation is ok, but Darwin should have been more careful.

Phil i mentioned it because cj asked.

And that other quote. I wasnt disagreeing with you. I was actually agreeing that evolution as adaptation DOES exist. So yes. I read it properly.

I guess you can always avoid most of my post, that works too.

I think Shark said it nicely in his post.

It's an interesting theory and may turn out to be true in the future but it isn't fact as yet. There just isn't the proof to back up his extrapolations as far as new species goes.

Easy I know you said you didn't want a religous debate but i'll just ask this question anyway, if you don't want to answer thats fine, i respect your beliefs.

Do you believe the creation idea as written in the bible or do you have your own/a different interpretation of it?

Evolution can be proven. I linked you... Other species, doesn't really matter.



http://www.physorg.com/news154027625....27625.html