Can anyone find fault with the following?:-
o Assume there was a 'first' Chicken, before which there were none.
o Its parent looked like a chicken in every way, but had some tiny genetic difference that meant it was not actually one.
o Some genetic process - mutation by radiation or a toxin; copying errors during meiosis; the pairing of the 'pre-chicken' with a 'pre-rooster' - eliminated that difference and produced a fertilised ovum that had the genome of a true chicken.
o That ovum was encapsulated in an egg, and laid by the proto-chicken.
o The egg itself contains no (significant) genetic material.
o The developing embryo therein was a true chicken.
o Therefore the egg was the first true chicken egg. Ignoring later genetic drifts in chicken genomes, the egg would be identical to all subsequent chicken eggs.
o When the egg hatched, the first chicken emerged, and the rest is poultry.
Anything wrong with that?
CD
2007-10-07 05:33:34 · 14 answers · asked by Super Atheist 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
You have it right...
Eggs certainly came first... NO DOUBT AT ALL ...and, they were all quite pleased with themselves until they realized that they had no way to reproduce. After some imaginative and inventive thinking on their part and following long planning, it came to pass that on that very afternoon that the first live chicken and rooster pair were produced as a means of egg reproduction. The egg community has been a steadily growing population ever since and they have coexisted peacefully with all other species, religious groups, races and nations even to the point of making personal sacrifices outside of their own community to become the worlds chief suppliers of breakfast omelets.
[][][] r u randy? [][][]
.
2007-10-07 09:12:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
But the pre-chicken egg now was a chicken egg meaning the egg came first. Darkleaf~~
2016-05-18 00:53:36 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing at all wrong with it if you had asked in the science forum. The question of "which came first the chicken or the egg" actually has 2 answers. The scientific one (egg) and the one for most religions (chicken).
As wonderfully laid out as your statements are, in the religion forum I would consider it a troll
2007-10-09 04:58:43 · answer #3 · answered by Gandalf Parker 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The egg still had to be laid. it's Mum was still a hen, the point is the egg was the product of a fowl, whatever the previous name of the fowl, so technically you may be right, speaking metaphorically, so to sum up. No! nothing wrong with your assumption, I concede defeat. Ahhhh! you have made me flip my lid.
2007-10-07 05:50:18 · answer #4 · answered by joe 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
lol rather good lol but maybe the chicken just evolved from an other animal and breed with each to form chickens that seems simpler but yes i dont see anything wrong with taht sounds good lol especially as ive learnt about mieosis :D
2007-10-07 05:39:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Chickens evolved from Archaeopterix. Is that right? I heard it from someone.
2007-10-07 05:38:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The first chickens were live birthed.
2007-10-07 05:37:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't see any flaws in your logic
Yet, is a True Chicken defined like a True Christian?
^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^
2007-10-07 05:43:56 · answer #8 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the real question is, are they still chickens? or have they moved on to become something chickenesque?
Still delish!
2007-10-07 05:58:20 · answer #9 · answered by SnakEve 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Cellular mitosis came first.
LOL
2007-10-09 01:21:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋