CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Chicken or the Egg?
Ok, I wake up every morning and think....what came first, the possibly infinite universe and all matter contained in it or the pure infintesably small object that went BANG and created the visible world??
Big bang, no strings to be found here, even if M theory is proven correct, where are the membranes located! Me thinks this is only for GOD to know and I don't believe in him/her.
The egg. Why? Because the first egg wasn't laid by a chicken, it was laid by a different creature who's offspring became the first chickens. So, the egg undoubtedly came first. ;)
Do you really believe that one species laid an egg that hatched an entirely different species? The theory that one species evolved into another species has long been abandoned by evolutionary biologists since the discovery of the genetic barrier that prevents it from happening.
Some species may be closely related by DNA but yet they are different species. Example, humans and apes share roughly 95% of the same DNA, yet we are two entirely different species. Apes do not give birth to humans. It never happened, never will, because of the genetic barrier.
Apparently you must not believe in evolution at all if you are so idiotic as to make an argument as unbelievably oblivious as that.
The first egg of the modern chicken was in fact not laid by a modern chicken. It was laid by a different species of chicken that was barely different then the modern chicken, but it was still laid by a species of chicken with only a genus in common.
As a species propagates and develops over time, it's denizens mutate more and more over a huge period of time. Then, eventually, an offspring of the primary species is born, and it has mutated so much and become so different from the original species, that the offspring is in fact a new species of creature. This happens in bacteria and insects all the time.
How else do you think evolution works?
Before modern humans were humans, we were a different species of humans. Then over thousands and thousands of years, our parent species mutated until they began giving birth to us, 'homo sapien'. Our parent species was about 99.9999999999999% similar to us, but they were still a different species.
The same can be said for every single last modern animal, or any animal to ever evolve in the history of animals. They don't just start out as a new species... their parent species evolves into them by giving birth to them over time.
A egg in general certainly came before the chicken, dinosaurs laid eggs.
Now embedded in the question of whether a chicken egg came first or after, It depends on if a egg is a chicken egg if it holds a chicken inside it or if it was laid by a chicken.
This is my theory: Big bang or whatever..... so we have dinosaurs. We can all agree that they once roamed this planet due to the evidence of their fossils. And if species evolved, I believe that something like this happened:
Pterodactyl---->Ostrich---->Chicken
From this conclusion, you cannot just have a chicken, you need an egg first.
On a side note: My Biology professor from last semester thinks that evolution should be the LAW of evolution, not theory because of evidence... just saying..
My Biology professor from last semester thinks that evolution should be the LAW of evolution, not theory because of evidence... just saying..
Well, your biology professor should know that a law and a theory describe two different aspects of science.
"A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation."
Well as natural history shows, insects, fish and reptiles are all older than dinos and birds and coincidentally they ALL lay eggs! So it is obvious that the egg came first.
Big bang theorists would and can prove within a small speck of time that we came from a singularity of combined forces/energy but what was that in before it broke open.
I hope your joking. first of all, if you aren't it doesn't seem you understand what science really is, a lot of people nowadays don't. science is an understanding of anything, science is our skill in finding the truth. some things we can't scientifically explain because we don't understand it to begin with, in other words if you understand something, thats technically a science or you could percieve it as scientific. in fact the "scientifically explained" or any form of that expression is silly, science is simply looking for the truth and nothing else, sure sometimes we can be wrong and say X is the truth when its really Y, and end up calling X scientific simply because there is something we got wrong. religion is not a search for the truth, its already claimed "truths" never trying to figure it out but merely claimed. if you want to find the truth, you look for it, not find any old explanation for it without knowing. so if god is real, and he is explainable and you could understand him, than there is science behind him. science never claims anything, only the people using it does.
second of all I think we found evidence some guy ended up finding a way to map out were most of the stars we see are going and there formation as a universe, it turns out that all the stars are moving away from one point I think, or something like that giving evidence for the big bang.
I can't believe you believe in the "Big Bang". There are so many assumptions that go along with the BB and it also defies many of our scientific laws. I will list a few for you to research.
First of all, stellar evolution could not have happened. Why?
Gas is said to have flowed outward from the bang through the frictionless space then formed into galaxies. Inertia, an object in motion will stay in motion until acted upon by an equal or greater force. Galaxies could not have formed as space is frictionless. Gas would have continued moving outward that its same speed as there would be no way to change the trajectory gasses and particles to cause them to clump together to form atoms.
Matter - By the laws of physics, the BB should have created equal amounts of positive matter and negative matter, yet there are only small amounts of negative matter in the known universe.
Gasses - Gasses do not clump together, not even on earth, they actually push apart. So how in the BB and stellar evolutionary theory would they clump together to form atoms? Think about fog, fog is a gas, have you ever witnessed or heard of fog clumping together? No, it dissipates, pushes apart. This is a physical law.
Stars - Take the previous; how can stars form? They can't, the gas would have to stop moving outward, change direction an then begin moving in circles. If the BB blew everything outward from the BB, inertia would not allow for this in the vacuum of space.
Nuclear mass gaps - With the BB, it only produced hydrogen and helium. How did these gasses change into the other 90 heavier elements? The evolutionary theory is that early stars that that defied the laws of physics, repeatedly exploded to create them. This is a problem because the nuclear gaps at 5 and 8 make it impossible for helium and hydrogen to change into any other element. Neither hydrogen nor helium have ever jumped the gap at mass 5. This is because neither protons or neutrons can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. Neither an atomic bomb nor a supernova has ever caused this jump. Look at a periodic table and observe the atomic masses; hydrogen (1.008), deuterum (a form of hydrogen) 2.016, then helium (4.003), followed by lithium (6.939), beryllium (9.012), boron (10.811) etc, etc. Gaps in atomic weight exist at mass 5 and 8.
These are just a few SCIENTIFIC reasons why the Big Bang could not account for the universe. Sorry.
umm... what you are describing is the Higgs/God particle giving weight to sub atomic particles...and how helium and hydrogen condensed into heaver elements, is simple and has been reproduced infinitely many times in the real, real world...you bore me....please move along~~@
Yes, the "theoretical" particle that we haven't really found but yet we assume that must exist in order to allow for all these theoretical ideas that we have that go against our physical laws; that particle, yes. That's why it's called the "GOD" particle; because only "GOD" could defy his own natural laws, like helium and hydrogen gaining enough atomic weight to change into heavier elements. Do you see how crazy it sounds?
Look past the luster and see that people conjure up insane hypotheses to try to give weight to a theory that is unworkable. If it defies the laws of physics why try to imagine a "GOD" particle in order to give credence to a hypothesis simply because you desire so much for that hypothesis to be true? Follow the evidence, don't fabricate evidence when evidence isn't present.
This debate has recently been settled. The chicken came first, and that is now a proven concept. Researchers found that chickens contain a protein that eggs are dependent on. Without this protein, the shell couldn't properly form. Therefore an egg could not have come about without a chicken.
Except not all eggs require a shell. To say that the chicken came first is to say that no egg laying animals existed before the chicken, which is demonstrably false.
Yes, not all egg laying requires the formation of a shell. But to lay a chicken egg a shell is required, and thus the protein found in the chicken is needed for the shell to form.
The debate does not specify "Chicken egg" or even "hard-shelled egg" only "Egg". Even so, an egg only needs to contain a chicken to be considered a "Chicken egg", if the egg were soft-shelled it would still be a chicken egg, a less viable one at that, but an egg nonetheless.
If anything the media has falsely generalized the results of the scientific study (as they often do) as to be more palatable to the general public.
Correct again, the debate does not explicitly specify a chicken egg. But the original archetype of the debate is between the chicken egg and the chicken.
I agree with you that the media explicitly generalizes scientific results (the most recent one was the "Canadian scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice")
But that is not the case here. A scientist explicitly claimed this "It had long been suspected that the egg came first but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first" (from the MSNBC article). And that protein mentioned is indeed adequate proof.
You missed my point. A chicken egg which lacks this shell-forming protein would still be a chicken egg. Furthermore the transition from unshelled egg to shelled egg is going to occur gradually over many generations, just as the transition from non-chicken to chicken would have occurred gradually over many generations. This study does not answer which came first, despite what is claimed. To say otherwise is to oversimplify the results of the study.
A chicken egg that was not carrying the genes to make use of the protein (assuming the shell also did not form) could not develop properly. You are correct in stating that the transition from unshelled egg to shelled egg is going to take a good while. But, for that egg to be recognized as a chicken egg, it must have that particular protein. If it lacked the shell-forming protein, then it would be nothing more than an evolutionary predecessor.
According to biology. An evolutionary predecessor to the chicken that did not have that protein (i.e. no shell) is as much of a chicken as the ancestor of the human species is human. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_egg
In regards to what Casper said, that is correct, but a very misleading definition of the species. It is essentially saying a chicken is a chicken. Changing the way a species produces offspring creates a new species. Thus the evolutionary predecessor to the chicken (no protein and no shell) is not a chicken.
All of biology does not even address this issue no less support your particular view on it. The evolutionary ancestors of humans are called humans because the term human effectively has two definitions. Human can either refer to specifically to "homo spaiens" or to the genus "Homo", thus why many human ancestors are also referred to as humans.
In regards to what Casper said, that is correct, but a very misleading definition of the species. It is essentially saying a chicken is a chicken.
You misunderstand. It was not a definition of chickens but a definition of chicken eggs.
Changing the way a species produces offspring creates a new species.
What do you declare as change when every generation results in change? This is evolution we are talking about. As you conceded earlier going from unshelled eggs to shelled eggs did not occur in a single generation. So where does one species end and another begin? Thus the problem with the chicken vs chicken egg question.
All of biology does not even address this issue no less support your particular view on it. The evolutionary ancestors of humans are called humans because the term human effectively has two definitions. Human can either refer to specifically to "homo spaiens" or to the genus "Homo", thus why many human ancestors are also referred to as humans.
Nowhere did I state that biology directly addresses the Chicken or Egg debate. My appeal to biology was to show the distinction between the ancestors of the chicken and the chicken. Also, a genus is not a species, obviously. So even though there are duplications of the original common name (much like calling our sun The Sun) I don't even think that quirk in words exists in chickens, but I welcome you to show me otherwise. But even if there is, we know that homo sapiens is not the same thing as homo erectus. The same would apply with chickens (whatever the actual species names are)
You misunderstand. It was not a definition of chickens but a definition of chicken eggs.
I understood that perfectly. Perhaps I was not clear enough on my point. A chicken egg and a chicken are from the same species, and should be very similar.
What do you declare as change when every generation results in change? This is evolution we are talking about. As you conceded earlier going from unshelled eggs to shelled eggs did not occur in a single generation. So where does one species end and another begin? Thus the problem with the chicken vs chicken egg question.
For one species to begin and for another to end, there must be "sufficient genetic separation". I am unsure on a percentage for that. I have also been looking up this problem in evolutionary papers and it seems like the cause-effect assumption is the flaw of this argument, as you stated. The evolutionary idea that the chicken and the egg had completely different paths is an odd one. Honestly, I see now that it might be a tie or a dispute over identity of a species.
The chicken was a mutant... it laid the first egg and this was an efficient means of reproduction so the mutant chicken survived to lay more eggs and it's chicks grew up to do the same... etc.
the big bang really never explains where the universe came from, just how it was formed, a big misconception about the big bang is that it states something formed from nothing, but thats not at all what the big bang theory states, everything was there before the big bang, just condensed. nothing new was created simply an expansion, thus I will not say the big bang created the universe however I do believe at least to some extent that the big bang happened, just if its really the case what I'd like to know is, where did the condensed universe inside the big bang come from?
The big bang only explains where the original energy came from, M theory explains how that energy expands between two opposing filaments but where are those membranes housed?? Hence Chicken or the Egg!!
I hope your joking. first of all, if you aren't it doesn't seem you understand what science really is, a lot of people nowadays don't. science is an understanding of anything, science is our skill in finding the truth. some things we can't scientifically explain because we don't understand it to begin with, in other words if you understand something, thats technically a science or you could percieve it as scientific. in fact the "scientifically explained" or any form of that expression is silly, science is simply looking for the truth and nothing else, sure sometimes we can be wrong and say X is the truth when its really Y, and end up calling X scientific simply because there is something we got wrong. religion is not a search for the truth, its already claimed "truths" never trying to figure it out but merely claimed. if you want to find the truth, you look for it, not find any old explanation for it without knowing. so if god is real, and he is explainable and you could understand him, than there is science behind him. science never claims anything, only the people using it does.
second of all I think we found evidence some guy ended up finding a way to map out were most of the stars we see are going and there formation as a universe, it turns out that all the stars are moving away from one point I think, or something like that giving evidence for the big bang.
the big bang really never explains where the universe came from, just how it was formed, a big misconception about the big bang is that it states something formed from nothing, but thats not at all what the big bang theory states, everything was there before the big bang, just condensed. nothing new was created simply an expansion, thus I will not say the big bang created the universe however I do believe at least to some extent that the big bang happened, just if its really the case what I'd like to know is, where did the condensed universe inside the big bang come from?
Its the chicken, because it the egg had come down, it wouldnt have got any warmth (incubation) to grow well. Moreover, it it had fallen down, it would be an omelet, for the chicken it wud get only fractures.
I think the chicken because chickens depend on there parents. If the egg came first who would take care of it. It would die. This is why I think the chicken came first
