FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Chickens thought, as their eggs are featherless, so their babies might feeling cold inside the egg.
Mutation directed them blindly to sit on their eggs,and the chicken asked itself,what the **** i am doing here.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How the chickens learned the need to sit on it's eggs ?
- Thread starter FearGod
- Start date
Mutation directed them blindly to sit on their eggs,and the chicken asked itself,what the **** i am doing here.
chinu
chinu
Not mutation, am saying COLD.Mutation directed them blindly to sit on their eggs,and the chicken asked itself,what the **** i am doing here.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
Chickens didn't somehow 'survive until the right mutation arrived'.
The ancestors of chickens probably didn't sit on their eggs.
There are plenty of egg-laying creatures which do not sit on their eggs.
At some point, in the history of the creatures which eventually evolved into the chickens we know today, sitting on the eggs was a trait which improved chances of survival.
You seem to be missing a fundamental part of how evolution works. Mutations are always occurring (randomly), but most mutations do not prove useful. You can call them 'mistakes' if you like. Or anomalies, or rarities.
Mutations become useful when the prevailing conditions, like climate, change. So for example, if the climate was warm enough for eggs to develop without chickens sitting on them, but then the climate became colder, the chickens which sat on their eggs would be the ones who had descendants - because the eggs which were not sat on would not hatch in the new colder conditions.
The chickens which had the behavior of sitting on their eggs may have been a very small minority until then. But they would be the only ones to successfully hatch their eggs, and so their genes would survive in their offspring. This means that the genes associated with that behavior would then predominate.
This is called an adaptation.
So, no, the chickens were not 'doing it wrong' before - the situation in which they lived changed, and so the variations, the mutations, which suited the new conditions become predominant.
idea
Question Everything
Egg or no egg, the ability to reproduce is pretty amazing.
Conception to birth — visualized! Alexander Tsiaras on TED.com | TED Blog
Conception to birth — visualized! Alexander Tsiaras on TED.com | TED Blog
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
Demonstrably untrue. The fossil record shows that the vast majority of species are extinct.
Because a false dichotomy is a form of fallacious argument, and you do yourself no favours pursuing it.
First, you seem to be picturing a single bird as "the first chicken". Bear in mind that evolution happens to populations, not individuals: populations of ancestral fowl would have accumulated features over many generations that were more and more chicken-like (or more accurately like the jungle fowl domesticated chickens are descended from). It is unlikely that an observer monitoring those populations over a long period could have pinpointed an exact transition to chickenhood (or junglefowlhood).
Secondly, egg incubation is a general feature of egg-laying endotherms: it was probably a feature of the dinosaur branch from which modern birds evolved. Variation in behaviour can have genetic causes; selection would have favoured early endotherms that stayed in close proximity to their eggs, spreading genes that tipped behaviour that way. Once such a trend had started, selection would favour closer and closer proximity, and ultimately the incubation behaviour we now observe.
That instinct, shes a pretty smart lady. No, rather, I think it is as Job 37:16 states "The wonderful works of the One perfect in knowledge." Yes, I think that explains it far better than instinct or lady luck, or so-called "natural selection."
I hope that your goodself will recognise the double standard. You demand evidence yet you assert "....all of them have a perfectly viable non-God related origin". As if you have perfect knowledge of the origin of life.
I clarify that I am not backing the "Intelligent Designer" idea. Yet, IMO, there is a great confusion, intentional or ignorant, between 'Origin of Species' and 'Origin of Intelligent Life'. Darwin did not theorise about 'Origin of Life'. He was honest that the origin of life itself was an unknown. But he held that the grand diversification of one or a few life forms followed simple rules, as desribed in 'Origin of Species' .
An excellent post on this is cited below:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2453617-post22.html
Aum shanti
Last edited:
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
I see you haven't given up on the good old 'argument from personal incredulity', rusra.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
I hope that your goodself will recognise the double standard. You demand evidence yet you assert "....all of them have a perfectly viable non-God related origin". As if you have perfect knowledge of the origin of life.
I clarify that I am not backing the "Intelligent Designer" idea. Yet, IMO, there is a great confusion, intentional or ignorant, between 'Origin of Species' and 'Origin of Intelligent Life'. Darwin did not theorise about 'Origin of Life'. He was honest that the origin of life itself was an unknown. But he held that the grand diversification of one or a few life forms followed simple rules, as desribed in 'Origin of Species' .
An excellent post on this is cited below:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2453617-post22.html
Aum shanti
Good link.
Darwin had some real humility.
This is why I reject sruti. Or the quran, the Bible or any so-called 'revealed text'.
You (I) really don't know anything about the Big Bang or the Vaikuntha planets or Allah or The Absolute. All of that is fabrication.
And you (I) don't know that someone else knew.
That is all supposition and poetry (and manipulation) in all honesty.
Your (my) 'experience' which you ( not I) call 'God' is just that - your (my) experience.
Conflating that experience with ancient texts is arbitrary association, and entirely unnecessary. And, useless.
I call it personal common sense and following the evidence. (Hebrews 3:4)
OF COURSE I DO NOT ENTIRELY AGREE. :slap:
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
You've already received answers to this question, the best answers you're going to get in the context of a post on a religious discussion forum with an obvious ulterior motive. If you're seriously seeking a better understand of evolutionary theory, you'd do much better going to academic sources rather than posting here.
chinu
chinu
Yes, academic sources for chickens ?
We superpose our own mind on scripture, which probably just points to the intelligent self that no one knows. What is imagination in the following, which simply draws attention to our own states of awareness?
Hymn of Creation
Holy Rigveda X.129.1-7
Neither Being nor non-Being existed then;
There was no sky, nor heaven, which is beyond.
What covered? Where was it and in whose shelter?
Was the water the deep abyss in which it lay? [1]
There was no death, hence neither was anything immortal;
There was no distinction between night and day.
By its inherent force the One breathed windless;
Nothing other than that existed. [2]
Darkness there was,
In the beginning all this was a sea without light;
That which, becoming, by the void was covered,
That One by the force of heat came into being. [3]
Desire entered the One in the beginning,
It was the earliest seed, the product of thought.
The Sages searching in their hearts with wisdom
Found the bond of Being in non-Being. [4]
Their ray extended light across the darkness;
But was the One below or was it above?
Creative force and fertile power was there;
Below was energy and will, above. [5]
Who knows for certain? Who shall declare it here?
When was it born and when came the creation?
The Devas came later,
Who then knows whence it arose? [6]
None knows when creation has arisen;
Whether He made it or did not make it,
He who surveys it in the highest heaven,
Only He knows, or maybe even He knows not! [7]
[Trans. Raimundo Pannikar]
-----
Last edited:
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
No, you did not. You claimed that people had said that mutation wasn't random. We have been clarifying the difference between mutation and natural selection since the contention was first raised. And I repeat:
NOT A SINGLE PERSON HAS SAID THAT MUTATIONS AREN'T RANDOM.
Your comment was therefore baseless and you are not contributing to this debate in any meaningful way by tossing about accusations that have no basis in reality. Instead of jerking your knee, perhaps you should take the time to think over your words and check them for validity before jumping into a discussion that you clearly have not made the effort to read.
. To appease apo, i post another translation by an Australian.
Translation by A.L. Basham
Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomable?
Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.
At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumed water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.
In the beginning desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is is kin to that which is not.
And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.
But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
The gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.
Rigved Samhita: 10th Mandala, 129th Suukta.
Translation by A.L. Basham
Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomable?
Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.
At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumed water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.
In the beginning desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is is kin to that which is not.
And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.
But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
The gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.
Rigved Samhita: 10th Mandala, 129th Suukta.
Why not go and ask chickens ? can't they help ?
Do you know any talking chickens that we can speak to for information on this subject?
I know. You search for the only chicken that is not wearing a cap and when you find that you have found him. :yes:
Couldn't you just give me his phone number instead?