Personalize Yedda, (And make Danny Happy)
People ask & answer about almost everything. Tell us what you're interested in... So we can personalize Yedda especially for you
I'm interested in:
Save
Cancel
Mr.Jqna

Home improvement projects, "Get'er done."

The chicken vs. the egg finally answered?

Just in case you missed this, I thought I’d pass this along. Someone asked the question, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” This has got to be the best answer that I ever heard.

Jerry’s answer: The egg, which was laid by a pre chicken like animal.  The embryo in the egg sported due to some slight change in the DNA. These changes would have had to have happened many thousands of times to finally make the animal we look at and identify as a chicken. What do you think about this?


Answer this question

Topics:

Share Send to a friend Watch Report
 

Best Answer

 
14 answers
6 helpful answers

I thought it was a good answer too, but can only convince someone who isn't a firm believer in Creationism.   Me, I believe in Evolution, so this answer was dead-on for me and I nearly clapped when I saw it.  However I also have faith and believe in a deity which makes me a little idiosyncratic.  Regardless, it's easy to ratiocinate that a chicken (as we know it today) with respect to its egg (as we know it today) cannot either precede or succeed one or the other, but that some other sequence of events must have set those dynamics in place.   These could be gradual steps (e.g "pre-chicken-like organism") or they could be divine intervention (e.g. God Impregnates Egg with Virgin Mary Chicken).  I don't know which one is right, but the evolution one seems, scientifically, more logical.
Posted 2009-09-06T03:36:15Z
Helpful?(1)
Rated as Best Answer

 

All Answers
Order by

 
1337 answers
283 helpful answers

It doesn't satisfy me.

Maybe there is no answer to the question.
Posted 2009-09-03T23:50:12Z
Helpful?(0)
Rated #2 out of 3
 
733 answers
226 helpful answers

Home improvement projects, "Get'er done."

Come on Lido tell us what you think and why. I've seen plenty of your answers. You're telling me that you've got nothing on this?
Posted 2009-09-04T00:12:44Z
Helpful?(0)
Rated #3 out of 3

Sign in to participate

Got an answer for Mr.Jqna? Would you like to comment on the posted answers, or vote for the one which you think is the best?

Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).

Explore Related Questions

Other people asked questions on similar topics, check out the answers they received:


Q:

Questions for evolution believers..

Which was the first reptile which changed from cold blooded to warm blooded? How did the first cell reproduce if it's dna strand ...
Submitted by blnk00   6 months ago.
  • 6 answers
  • viewed 216 times
Last answer posted 2 months ago by Scimitar Oryx
Asked about "Early Skeleton Evolution"


Q:

Is there any likelihood for a Lamarckian evoluton to be the explanaton of sexualilty in evolution?

It is thouroughly supressed by most (isn't it?) that random change in sex cells would, if there weren't any connection between ...
Submitted by frevelm   9 months ago.
  • 4 answers
  • viewed 129 times
Last answer posted 7 months ago by frevelm


Q:

What about Gerber vs. Darwin theory of evolution

I am really interested in the Gerber vs. Darwin theory of evolution, a rather dramatic new theory disturbing yet liberating if ...
Submitted by RichardThomas   9 months ago.
  • 1 answer
  • viewed 281 times
Last answer posted 9 months ago by profitbob



» More...

Explore Related Posts in Forums

Micro-evolution & Macro-evolution

We've all seen the effects of Micro-evolution It makes one dog a poodle, another a dalmation , another a terrier. So, natural selection accounts for Micro-evolution. Now what about Macro-evolution would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation

The Truth About Evolution and Religion - evolution

Review of Kenneth Miller's book: Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul ) to 
show the following: 
1) Evolution only applies to the bodies of humans, not their souls. 
Biologists , but it does.1) Evolution only applies to the bodies of humans, not their souls. 
Biologists must admit

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that evolution is false... - evolution...

Or evolution seems to point to the fact that evolution not only happens, but is an instrisinct quality , given all we know. So lets say, for the sake of argument, that evolution is false. Life doesn't comments and questions. In order to accept ID as science, it is not necessary to believe that evolution
» More...
Powered by
Feed - Subscribe to changes to this Q&A Blog
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Answers
  • Web
Copyright © 2006-2009, Yedda Inc. and respective copyright owners · CC License