Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[TagliatelliMonster]

The book has fulfilled prophecy. Which is evidence.

So does the quran. But you are not a muslim, are you?

And when you obey what God actually says to do in the book , then he will show himself real to you.

That's called confirmation bias and self-deception.

(I'm not talking about belief in a Trinity - that is false doctrine.)

lol. Your species of no-true scottsman, is noted.
Let's just ignore those who have received "personal proof" from the holy ghost then.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

sorry, I just can't spend endless hours researching something I know is wrong to begin with.

I love how you just admit to be operating from an assumed conclusion.
Pretending to have the answers before asking / investigating the questions.

Yes, exactly. You have already decided what you are going to believe without bothering to actually look at the evidence.

Pure intellectual lazyness.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When someone (even including you) starts saying I'm ignorant on evolution - just because I am questioning its validity.

I'm not saying you are ignorant about evolution because you question it.
I'm saying you are ignorant about evolution because literally everything you say about the topic shows that you are ignorant about it.
This is an observation, not an insult.

I'm ignorant about a lot of things. And when I start talking about those things, it will be very quickly apparant to those who DO understand those subjects just how ignorant I am about it. And they'll tell me also. That is not insulting. It's just a fact.

Or that I wasn't paying attention in class and that I lack knowledge of what a theory is , etc. That's getting outside the debated issue.

Again, this is just observation. When you express as an objection to a scientific theory that it isn't "proven", then I'm not sorry to say, you don't understand what a scientific theory is.

This is again just a fact.

Instead of feeling insulted, perhaps take a step back and ask yourself if it wouldn't be better to accept that you indeed might be ignorant about these subjects and if it bothers you to be ignorant about it - you're in luck! Ignorance is easily solved. All it takes is some study.

Note that we didn't call you dumb or an idiot.
For all I know, you might be a very intelligent person.
You just don't happen to be well-versed and / or educated in the sciences.
That's fine. But if that's the case, you should expect being called out if you then wish to debate / argue scientific subjects. And you shouldn't be feeling insulted by it.

Instead, consider it an opportunity to learn.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution is just a man made theory.

Every scientific theory is a manmade theory. Arguing against all of science again instead of only evolution.
Also: it is not "just" a theory. It's triumphally a theory.

You aren't demonstrating anything with real evidence. Of course taste buds are important. I just believe they were God given, and not evolved. You have a made up story you are telling. It can't be proven.

No theory can be proven. Only supported with evidence.
How many times must it be repeated?
Why do you double down on mistakes instead of correcting them?
Why do you insist on being wrong and arguing strawmen?

You can't even explain how we would get a first chicken. It takes an egg, which requires a female to lay it and a male to fertilize it. No matter what precursor to the chicken you say there might be, you are always in the same situation. How did you get that precursor to the chicken without an egg and a male to fertilize it, and how could you get the egg without the female previously existing?

It HAD to come about thru the creation.

Let's just pretend for the sake of argument that evolution offers no explanation for that.
Then, your conclusion is no more or less then an argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy.

In that case, the only correct rational answer would be "we don't know". Not "the god I happen to believe in by geographic accident did it."

 

[joelr]

Try Penrose and hammeroff, the ORCH theory to read an actual paper.

I have Cycles of Time, Penrose is difficult reading. I am familiar with the paper you mention. Like I said, QM may be connected to the brain.

Do you even comprehend what quantum computation is? Be honest.

Yes it uses qbits or superposition to review a large amount of answers at once. Why does this matter?

That suggests that they measured that the brain operated and the person was aware and then use the term Quantum processes.

Nope. They use the term because there is a possibility the spin of the protons in the brain fluid were entangled and this entanglement is possibly interacting with brain processes.

Do you even know what a quantum process is, at the level of atoms and energy?

I do understand physics to a degree, do you "even" know how to have a conversation without sounding like an egotistical knowitall.

I doubt that you even know how mass/energy work together let alone comprehend what the term quantum even means.

Right, so I still do not understand what point you were trying to make? Answering with a snarky and "I know everything, do you???" bunch of BS doesn't answwer that question at all. It does answer other questions I really don't want to know and yet now I do.

They also don't "work together" but are equivalent. But that doesn't matter because I'm saying I don't understand what you were saying, so could you clarify?

Conservation? Not even relevant to the discussion. Conversion was the term that I used as living systems are CONVERTING energy at every cell.

What discussion? You made a series of statements that made no sense? SO I'm asking you to explain what you mean.

Yes cells use energy, so what? Life uses energy but obeys the laws of energy conservation.

You are telling me something is not relevant to the discussion after I told you I have no clue what you are talking about? SO that isn't surprising it wasn't relevant because I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I still don't see an explanation, just weird gaslighting about how much one knows about modern physics?

Yes, conversions. Not conservation. What is causing the potential? The heat? Motion? Do you have any idea?

I don't know how to define potential energy in GR. You would have to start with a metric for spacetime, I don't remember tensor equations.
Potential is caused by position, it's just mass x a gravitational constant x height.

Now what are you talking about please?

If you have no idea about the em fields, then how can you debate 2LOT or living systems?

Debating what? I don't know what you were talking about for starters?
What EM fields? Maxwells classical fields or quantum fields?

And what it that thing, causing the flavors of energy?

What are you talking about? Monster energy drink flavors??

Energy doesn't have "flavors". The only thing in physics with that is quark charges. Not in photons.

Returns to earth? What?

Energy from the sun generally returns to earth from people through water, used food, decomposition, and other forms, or gets in the atmosphere and cycles through storms and such.

That is perfect evidence that you truly have no idea what you are writing.

No I'm 100% certain I know what I'm writing, I do not understand what the heck you are talking about, please explain.

The thing I said about potential energy, all true.

You claimed that i do not understand. When it is clear, that you have no idea what you are writing.

Uh, nope, what I said was :

"No that line doesn't prove anything except I still don't understand what you are saying in your answer."

That would mean it is I who does not understand what you are writing. So can you restate it in a way that makes sense?

Instead of asking me mundane physics questions and trying to make out like I don't understand physics. That isn't going to go well for you, I promise. Now I'm done playing 10 questions, restate your point or go away. Thankyou.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't say he did it to merely make them look old. Adam would need to be able to take care of himself.

The examples I gave you (broken genes, ERV's, nested structures of DNA) all aren't need to "take care of yourself", but all point uniquely to common ancestry and a long history of life.

And nature would need to be such that it could maintain the cycle of life.

Craters from meteor impacts millions of years ago, oil fields with millions of years history, geological layers showing volcanic eruptions millions of years ago, progression of fossils through the ages, canyons that take millions of years to form,... none of thee are necessary to "maintain a cycle of life". But all point to a long history of a very old earth.

My example was just to show that things may be much younger than you believe.

Your example showed nothing of the sort. Your example furthermore ignores all data, some of which I mentioned (and that's just the tip of the iceberg) that paints a very very very different picture.

He didn't need your permission. He was the creator. He could put things in any state he wanted to.

Sure, he could do anything by definition of being magically all-powerful. Including being deceptive and planting false evidence.
Off course, once you allow for "he can do anything", then by definition he off course can do anything....
Gratz.

Well don't just shrug your shoulders either.

I don't.

Explain how we got the first chicken.

It evolved.

You have to have an egg first , and a male to fertilize it.

Chicken ancestors were egg laying creatures.
As for eggs:

Evolution of the egg: new findings and challenges - PubMed

The evolution of the egg is dynamic, and eggs have numerous species-specific properties across vertebrates and invertebrates. Interestingly, although the structure and function of the egg have remained relatively conserved over time, some constituents of the egg's extracellular barriers are...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Note also that there is a difference between establishing that evolution happened and explaining how every single thing evolved exactly.
Consider murder forensics. It's one thing to establish that a murder took place. It's another to establish how exactly the murder occurred.

If you find a dead body with a knife in its back, it's easy to conclude a murder took place.
But how did it happen? Who did it? At what time? Where did the knife come from? Where was the victim standing? Where was the murderer standing? From what angle was he stabbed? Did the victim die in the place he was found, or was he moved there after being killed?

Common ancestory of species if nothing short of fact. DNA demonstrates it, beyond the shadow of a doubt. It's as close to proof as you can possibly get.
We can demonstrably establish species share ancestry in pretty much the same way, with the same certainty, that 2 siblings share biological parents when the only evidence we have is DNA of both individuals.

We KNOW chickens evolved.
We KNOW they are descendends from the old dinosaurs.
We KNOW species share ancestry.
We KNOW evolution occurred.

We do not necessarily know exactly how every single trait evolved - eventhough we know a lot already.

But you can't get the egg without the chicken first.

False. Chickens evolved from egg laying ancestors.

And it doesn't matter what you try to say the precursor to the chicken was. You are in the same situation - needing an egg first - but unable to get the egg because it requires the animal to lay the egg.

Gradualism, again.
Once again your ignorance on the how the process works, is confusing you.
You seem once again to be saying that one day a non-egg-laying creature gave birth to an egg-laying creature.
Gradualism doesn't work that way.

Eggs didn't evolve overnight.
No trait evolves overnight.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let me make sure I've got this. So you are telling me that if mankind couldn't taste, mankind wouldn't even exist?

Correct. They'ld die from food poisoning, not being able to tell fresh frood from rotten or poisonous food.
That is, unless they had some trait other then taste / smell to tell the difference.

And you are saying the tree evolved into an apple tree just to continue the species. So it was just perchance that it happens to produce fruit that tastes good.

Apples are actually he result of artificial selection by humans, much like the banana.
In fact, most vegetables and fruit we know and love today have been created by man through artificial selection in agricultural programs over centuries, if not millenia.

Those are exactly the kind of answers that solidify my disbelief in evolution.

You mean, your handwaving of the answers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe I should put it like this. Your answers don't make logical sense to me. For instance it makes no sense, that just because man couldn't taste anything, that it would prevent him from being able to exist.

I'm wanting someone to explain in a logical way in their own words.

I already did, but you keep ignoring it.
Taste allows you to tell the difference between what's good for you and what's bad for you.

Remember my covid example of my sister in law who lost her sense of smell / taste?
When cooking dinner, she couldn't tell if the meat was spoiled or not. This is a huge problem. For all she knew, she was preparing a meal that would make her entire family sick from food poisoning - or worse.

Like explaining how you would possibly get the first chicken. It takes an egg fertilized by a male chicken. Yet you can't get the egg to begin with without the chicken already existing.

These questions are all rooted in ignorance and based on strawmen.
It's like asking "if gravity is real, then why do hammers float in the international space station?"
It's in the category of "not even wrong".

And the forerunners of the modern chicken would be bound by the same constraints. You can't have either one (the chicken or the egg) without having the other first. Explain how those basic principles were bypassed by evolution.

Eggs evolved gradually over many many many generations.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you do not know how Egg laying evolved at all, just sure that is did beucase that is how the circular reasoning of evolution works

As previously said, knowing how something evolved is different from knowing it evolved.


You don't need to know the first to know the latter.

Just like you don't need to know exactly how a murder took place to be able to establish that a murder took place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you find a dead body with a knife in its back, it's easy to conclude a murder took place.

I don't know about that. The poor bloke.may have just had a terrible itch in his back.

 

[McBell]

I know. God did it.

Why is God laying all those eggs?

 

[joelr]

We are just on two different wavelengths.

No, I follow established evidence, you do not.

Evolution is just a man made theory.

As is mathematics, gravity, thermodynamics and relativity. However nature seems to follow these laws very accurately.

You aren't demonstrating anything with real evidence.

There is also actual evolutionary evidence for eye development in 5 separate species with different common ancestors. You can find this or I can find it for you.

What this sounds like is a refusal to accept evidence even when it exists. So the belief you hold is more important than what can be demonstrated in reality. Not everyone is operating with beliefs supported by reality, as you know.

Of course taste buds are important. I just believe they were God given, and not evolved. You have a made up story you are telling. It can't be proven.

That's funny, I don't see any evidence for any gods, just claims and stories. I am very familiar with the historical and archaeological scholarship and I can tell you there is no evidence there except for borrowed, reworked mythology.

Now on the other hand, there is actual evidence for the evolution of taste buds:

Evolutionary origins of taste buds: phylogenetic analysis of purinergic neurotransmission in epithelial chemosensors - PMC

Taste buds are gustatory endorgans which use an uncommon purinergic signalling system to transmit information to afferent gustatory nerve fibres. In mammals, ATP is a crucial neurotransmitter released by the taste cells to activate the afferent ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Evolutionary origins of taste buds: phylogenetic analysis of purinergic neurotransmission in epithelial chemosensors​

Abstract​

Taste buds are gustatory endorgans which use an uncommon purinergic signalling system to transmit information to afferent gustatory nerve fibres. In mammals, ATP is a crucial neurotransmitter released by the taste cells to activate the afferent nerve fibres. Taste buds in mammals display a characteristic, highly specific ecto-ATPase (NTPDase2) activity, suggesting a role in inactivation of the neurotransmitter. The purpose of this study was to test whether the presence of markers of purinergic signalling characterize taste buds in anamniote vertebrates and to test whether similar purinergic systems are employed by other exteroceptive chemosensory systems. The species examined include several teleosts, elasmobranchs, lampreys and hagfish, the last of which lacks vertebrate-type taste buds. For comparison, Schreiner organs of hagfish and solitary chemosensory cells (SCCs) of teleosts, both of which are epidermal chemosensory end organs, were also examined because they might be evolutionarily related to taste buds. Ecto-ATPase activity was evident in elongate cells in all fish taste buds, including teleosts, elasmobranchs and lampreys. Neither SCCs nor Schreiner organs show specific ecto-ATPase activity, suggesting that purinergic signalling is not crucial in those systems as it is for taste buds. These findings suggest that the taste system did not originate from SCCs but arose independently in early vertebrates.

You can't even explain how we would get a first chicken. It takes an egg, which requires a female to lay it and a male to fertilize it. No matter what precursor to the chicken you say there might be, you are always in the same situation. How did you get that precursor to the chicken without an egg and a male to fertilize it, and how could you get the egg without the female previously existing?

Wow, look at that, you moved the goalpost already. We just started with taste buds and now it's chicken eggs. So when I give the explanation you will say it's just a story, when I give papers that explain the fossil records you will use anything else to keep belief in fiction.

Egg evolution isn't even that difficult. Some animals gave birth and the hatchling was encased in a fluid which protected the animal. Through evolution this because harder and harder and eventually was fully formed before the birth happened because it provided an advantage for the hatchling.
Creationists have you believe everything forms fully functional. You cannot fathom hundreds of thousands of years of small changes. And scientific evidence you have been brainwashed to ignore.


That is how eggs formed, but eggs were in use during the dinosaur times so chickens evolved already using the egg model.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

www.sciencefocus.com

Eggs are much older than chickens. Dinosaurs laid eggs, the fish that first crawled out of the sea laid eggs, and the weird articulated monsters that swam in the warm shallow seas of the Cambrian Period 500 million years ago also laid eggs. They weren’t chicken’s eggs, but they were still eggs.

So the egg definitely came first. Unless you restate the question as ‘which came first, the chicken or the chicken’s egg?’ Then it very much depends on how you define a chicken’s egg. Is it an egg laid by a chicken? Or is it an egg that a chicken hatches from? Chickens are the same species as the red jungle fowl of Southeast Asia, although they were probably hybridised with the grey jungle fowl when they were domesticated 10,000 years ago.
But it doesn’t matter; at some point in evolutionary history when there were no chickens, two birds that were almost-but-not-quite chickens mated and laid an egg that hatched into the first chicken. If you are prepared to call that egg a chicken’s egg, then the egg came first. Otherwise, the chicken came first and the first chicken’s egg had to wait until the first chicken laid it.

It HAD to come about thru the creation.

No, it's all explained.

Eggs go back way before chickens.

?But you really think thousands of scientists, each year sees new members, all come to the conclusion from massive evidence, but are still wrong and this "HAD" to be creation. But none of them can see it?

OR, you have been misled by unscientific bias fundamentalists pushing a fantasy agenda? Why can you not show me some evidence of your position from science?



This timeline of egg fossils research is a chronologically ordered list of important discoveries, controversies of interpretation, taxonomic revisions, and cultural portrayals of egg fossils. Humans have encountered egg fossils for thousands of years. In Stone Age Mongolia, local peoples fashioned fossil dinosaur eggshell into jewelry. In the Americas, fossil eggs may have inspired Navajo creation myths about the human theft of a primordial water monster's egg. Nevertheless, the scientific study of fossil eggs began much later. As reptiles, dinosaurs were presumed to have laid eggs from the 1820s on, when their first scientifically documented remains were being described in England.[1] In 1859, the first scientifically documented dinosaur egg fossils were discovered in southern France by a Catholic priest and amateur naturalist named Father Jean-Jacques Poech, however he thought they were laid by giant birds.

The first scientifically recognized dinosaur egg fossils were discovered serendipitously in 1923 by an American Museum of Natural History crew while looking for evidence of early humans in Mongolia. These eggs were mistakenly attributed to the locally abundant herbivore Protoceratops, but are now known to be Oviraptor eggs. Egg discoveries continued to mount all over the world, leading to the development of multiple competing classification schemes. In 1975 Chinese paleontologist Zhao Zi-Kui started a revolution in fossil egg classification by developing a system of "parataxonomy" based on the traditional Linnaean system to classify eggs based on their physical qualities rather than their hypothesized mothers. Zhao's new method of egg classification was hindered from adoption by Western scientists due to language barriers. However, in the early 1990s Russian paleontologist Konstantin Mikhailov brought attention to Zhao's work in the English language scientific literature.

 

[joelr]

If evolution is real. Please explain how we got the first chicken considering the following facts.

Facts:
1. You need an egg and a male to fertilize the egg to get a chicken.

Eggs go back to dinosaurs. The mammals chickens evolved from (possibly dinosaurs) were using the egg model during birth.

Going way back there would be an animal that birthed it's young in a protective fluid that saw an advantage the harder it got. Eventually a shell formed and a delayed birth, it all had some advantage that allowed better survival.

Whomever posed these questions is not at all interested in truth. They would first study evolution, find the answers and then see if they still had questions. You prove a theory by trying as hard as you can to disprove it first.

2. You can't get the egg without an existing female.
3. Any precursor to the modern day chicken faces the same constraints.

All precursor birds and reptiles they may have evolved from were using the egg method.

How eggs got their shapes

Adaptations for flight may have driven egg-shape variety in birds

seas.harvard.edu

The evolution of the amniotic egg — complete with membrane and shell — was key to vertebrates leaving the oceans and colonizing the land and air. Now, 360 million years later, bird eggs come in all shapes and sizes, from the almost perfectly spherical eggs of brown hawk- owls to the tear-drop shape of sandpipers’ eggs. The question is, how and why did this diversity in shape evolve?
The answer to that question may help explain how birds evolved and solve an old mystery in natural history.

An international team of scientists led by researchers at Harvard and Princeton universities, with colleagues in the UK, Israel and Singapore, took a quantitative approach to this question. Using methods and ideas from mathematics, physics and biology, they characterized the shape of eggs from about 1,400 species of birds and developed a model that explains how an egg’s membrane determines its shape. Using an evolutionary framework, the researchers found that the shape of an egg correlates with flight ability, suggesting that adaptations for flight may have been critical drivers of egg-shape variation in birds.

The research is published in Science.

“Our study took a unified approach to understanding egg shape by asking three questions: how to quantify egg shape and provide a basis for comparison of shapes across species, what are the biophysical mechanisms that determine egg shape, and what are the implications of egg shape in an evolutionary and ecological setting,” said senior author, L. Mahadevan, the Lola England de Valpine Professor of Applied Mathematics at the John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS), Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, and of Physics at Harvard. “We showed that egg shapes vary smoothly across species, that it is determined by the membrane properties rather than the shell, and finally that there is a strong correlation linking birds that have eggs that are elliptical and asymmetric with a strong flight ability, the last a real surprise.”

Mahadevan is also a Core Faculty Member of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University.

The researchers began by plotting the shape — as defined by the pole-to-pole asymmetry and the ellipticity — of some 50,000 eggs, representing 14 percent of species in 35 orders, including two extinct orders.


Why don't you just research egg evolution and see if you can debunk your theory, just to confirm it's true if you cannot? What is fun about holding false beliefs?

 

[joelr]

The article didn't prove that either. And I wasn't saying taste wasn't important. I was saying you could survive by eating without the food tasting wonderful - that was the point. So it wasn't a necessity for foods to evolve with different tastes or for tastebuds to be able to enjoy it to have evolved.

But you can survive better by knowing what foods are sugary because you will store bodyfat, hence the dopamine release and ability to overeat sugar.
You can recognize poison or bad rotten foods that would make you sick. Food poisoning can be fatal. You also need to know how much of what foods you are eating. Of course taste buds make sense for survival.

Just research why taste buds are important? How hard is that? Refine your theory, discard the useless points? Why do you want to sit on such a bad argument?

What would be the cause for a tree to evolve into an apple tree?

Apples are an incubator for seeds. They are also a way for seeds to spread out far beyond the tree, animals eat them and leave the core somewhere beyond the tree. Excellent method of reproduction.
Surround the seed with sugary edible food but make the seeds hard so they get spit out.

They didn't start as apples? Some material surrounded the seed. A mutation made it contain sugar and animals started checking it out and leaving the core. So the genes to produce sugar in the material were more successful. This continued to refine until it became an apple, which served it's purpose.

So you don't do evidence but folk tales based on older tales are compelling?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I understood very well what you were saying. I read the whole conversation.
This sounds like just another cop-out.



I know. And I explained how you concluding that was not correct. But alas.



I explained 3 times now how this isn't true. You ignore the concept of gradualism.
You assume that under evolution, there had to be a non-human who gave birth to a human.
That's not how it works. I illustrated how that's not how it works by giving the example of evolution of language.
Spanish evolved from Latin.
At no point in history did a latin speaking mother raise a spanish speaking child.
Every spanish speaking child, ever, had a spanish speaking mother.
There is no hard line where you can say "now the child speaks spanish while the mother does not".

Gradualism.



You should give this advice to yourself.
Answer the challenge concerning language.
Latin evolved into spanish, correct?
Was there a point in history where a non-spanish speaking mother raised a spanish speaking child?
Is it not true that all spanish-speaking children had spanish-speaking parents?


No.

This is a waste of time. You aren't really explaining anything - even though you are claiming you did. Mainly just arguing.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Eggs evolved before chickens.
Chickens had egg laying ancestors.



Please. Don't pretend as if you are aware of the scientific explanations concerning the evolution of sex.
You have already demonstrated time and again that you don't even understand the basic concept of gradualism. You can't even begin to understand evolution without that foundation, let alone evolution of specific traits and processes.


Imagine if you didn't.
You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between rotten or poisonous food and fresh food.

You'ld die from eating poisonous and / or rotten food.

Why do you intentionally avoid the egg laying ancestors having the same problem? You STILL can't have either the egg or the egg laying ancestor without the other already having been here. YOU are UNABLE to provide a reasonable answer.

Please. Don't pretend I was talking about the evolution of sex. That is so disingenuous. You know that was involving the fact that you had to have an existing animal to lay the egg, and an existing male to have fertilized the egg before it could produce a chick.

Hmmm - So that's how you tell if something you are going to eat is poisonous? You just taste it. The last I heard lots of people still die from poison. (Tasting it is not the preferred method of poison detection.)

YOU are saying based on evidence from evolution that eggs evolved first. WHAT laid the egg for the chicken laying ancestor?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Every scientific theory is a manmade theory. Arguing against all of science again instead of only evolution.
Also: it is not "just" a theory. It's triumphally a theory.



No theory can be proven. Only supported with evidence.
How many times must it be repeated?
Why do you double down on mistakes instead of correcting them?
Why do you insist on being wrong and arguing strawmen?


Let's just pretend for the sake of argument that evolution offers no explanation for that.
Then, your conclusion is no more or less then an argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy.

In that case, the only correct rational answer would be "we don't know". Not "the god I happen to believe in by geographic accident did it."

It's just a waste of my time dealing with you. I would accept your answer of "we don't know". That would be a correct answer. Have a good day.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I already did, but you keep ignoring it.
Taste allows you to tell the difference between what's good for you and what's bad for you.

Remember my covid example of my sister in law who lost her sense of smell / taste?
When cooking dinner, she couldn't tell if the meat was spoiled or not. This is a huge problem. For all she knew, she was preparing a meal that would make her entire family sick from food poisoning - or worse.



These questions are all rooted in ignorance and based on strawmen.
It's like asking "if gravity is real, then why do hammers float in the international space station?"
It's in the category of "not even wrong".


Eggs evolved gradually over many many many generations.

I think your answers are all rooted in ignorance.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think your answers are all rooted in ignorance.

And yours apparently in one of so many beliefs.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No, I follow established evidence, you do not.





As is mathematics, gravity, thermodynamics and relativity. However nature seems to follow these laws very accurately.



There is also actual evolutionary evidence for eye development in 5 separate species with different common ancestors. You can find this or I can find it for you.

What this sounds like is a refusal to accept evidence even when it exists. So the belief you hold is more important than what can be demonstrated in reality. Not everyone is operating with beliefs supported by reality, as you know.





That's funny, I don't see any evidence for any gods, just claims and stories. I am very familiar with the historical and archaeological scholarship and I can tell you there is no evidence there except for borrowed, reworked mythology.

Now on the other hand, there is actual evidence for the evolution of taste buds:

Evolutionary origins of taste buds: phylogenetic analysis of purinergic neurotransmission in epithelial chemosensors - PMC

Taste buds are gustatory endorgans which use an uncommon purinergic signalling system to transmit information to afferent gustatory nerve fibres. In mammals, ATP is a crucial neurotransmitter released by the taste cells to activate the afferent ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Evolutionary origins of taste buds: phylogenetic analysis of purinergic neurotransmission in epithelial chemosensors​

Abstract​

Taste buds are gustatory endorgans which use an uncommon purinergic signalling system to transmit information to afferent gustatory nerve fibres. In mammals, ATP is a crucial neurotransmitter released by the taste cells to activate the afferent nerve fibres. Taste buds in mammals display a characteristic, highly specific ecto-ATPase (NTPDase2) activity, suggesting a role in inactivation of the neurotransmitter. The purpose of this study was to test whether the presence of markers of purinergic signalling characterize taste buds in anamniote vertebrates and to test whether similar purinergic systems are employed by other exteroceptive chemosensory systems. The species examined include several teleosts, elasmobranchs, lampreys and hagfish, the last of which lacks vertebrate-type taste buds. For comparison, Schreiner organs of hagfish and solitary chemosensory cells (SCCs) of teleosts, both of which are epidermal chemosensory end organs, were also examined because they might be evolutionarily related to taste buds. Ecto-ATPase activity was evident in elongate cells in all fish taste buds, including teleosts, elasmobranchs and lampreys. Neither SCCs nor Schreiner organs show specific ecto-ATPase activity, suggesting that purinergic signalling is not crucial in those systems as it is for taste buds. These findings suggest that the taste system did not originate from SCCs but arose independently in early vertebrates.






Wow, look at that, you moved the goalpost already. We just started with taste buds and now it's chicken eggs. So when I give the explanation you will say it's just a story, when I give papers that explain the fossil records you will use anything else to keep belief in fiction.

Egg evolution isn't even that difficult. Some animals gave birth and the hatchling was encased in a fluid which protected the animal. Through evolution this because harder and harder and eventually was fully formed before the birth happened because it provided an advantage for the hatchling.
Creationists have you believe everything forms fully functional. You cannot fathom hundreds of thousands of years of small changes. And scientific evidence you have been brainwashed to ignore.


That is how eggs formed, but eggs were in use during the dinosaur times so chickens evolved already using the egg model.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

www.sciencefocus.com

Eggs are much older than chickens. Dinosaurs laid eggs, the fish that first crawled out of the sea laid eggs, and the weird articulated monsters that swam in the warm shallow seas of the Cambrian Period 500 million years ago also laid eggs. They weren’t chicken’s eggs, but they were still eggs.

So the egg definitely came first. Unless you restate the question as ‘which came first, the chicken or the chicken’s egg?’ Then it very much depends on how you define a chicken’s egg. Is it an egg laid by a chicken? Or is it an egg that a chicken hatches from? Chickens are the same species as the red jungle fowl of Southeast Asia, although they were probably hybridised with the grey jungle fowl when they were domesticated 10,000 years ago.
But it doesn’t matter; at some point in evolutionary history when there were no chickens, two birds that were almost-but-not-quite chickens mated and laid an egg that hatched into the first chicken. If you are prepared to call that egg a chicken’s egg, then the egg came first. Otherwise, the chicken came first and the first chicken’s egg had to wait until the first chicken laid it.




No, it's all explained.

Eggs go back way before chickens.

?But you really think thousands of scientists, each year sees new members, all come to the conclusion from massive evidence, but are still wrong and this "HAD" to be creation. But none of them can see it?

OR, you have been misled by unscientific bias fundamentalists pushing a fantasy agenda? Why can you not show me some evidence of your position from science?



This timeline of egg fossils research is a chronologically ordered list of important discoveries, controversies of interpretation, taxonomic revisions, and cultural portrayals of egg fossils. Humans have encountered egg fossils for thousands of years. In Stone Age Mongolia, local peoples fashioned fossil dinosaur eggshell into jewelry. In the Americas, fossil eggs may have inspired Navajo creation myths about the human theft of a primordial water monster's egg. Nevertheless, the scientific study of fossil eggs began much later. As reptiles, dinosaurs were presumed to have laid eggs from the 1820s on, when their first scientifically documented remains were being described in England.[1] In 1859, the first scientifically documented dinosaur egg fossils were discovered in southern France by a Catholic priest and amateur naturalist named Father Jean-Jacques Poech, however he thought they were laid by giant birds.

The first scientifically recognized dinosaur egg fossils were discovered serendipitously in 1923 by an American Museum of Natural History crew while looking for evidence of early humans in Mongolia. These eggs were mistakenly attributed to the locally abundant herbivore Protoceratops, but are now known to be Oviraptor eggs. Egg discoveries continued to mount all over the world, leading to the development of multiple competing classification schemes. In 1975 Chinese paleontologist Zhao Zi-Kui started a revolution in fossil egg classification by developing a system of "parataxonomy" based on the traditional Linnaean system to classify eggs based on their physical qualities rather than their hypothesized mothers. Zhao's new method of egg classification was hindered from adoption by Western scientists due to language barriers. However, in the early 1990s Russian paleontologist Konstantin Mikhailov brought attention to Zhao's work in the English language scientific literature.

No it's not explained. You still have the same problem of how to get a dinosaur egg. It still would require an existing dinosaur first.

All the things you provide are really just man made beliefs and opinions. If it was hundreds of thousands of years ago - you can't prove anything. You can only postulate opinions and theories and beliefs. None of which can actually be proven.