Thu 19 Aug 2010
The Chicken or the Egg?
Posted by Shammah under Miscellaneous
[6] Comments
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
(As you may be able to tell, this is one of those off topic posts I occasionally put up.)
As it turns out, my children think the answer is simple: If you believe in evolution, the egg came first; if you reject evolution, it’s the chicken.
If you take Genesis literally, and God created all birds on the 5th day, then the chicken has to come before the egg because the egg would require a chicken to incubate it.
If you don’t take Genesis literally, and you believe in evolution, then the egg came first because it was produced by something that was almost a chicken, and then the chicken came out of the egg.
Of course, I should be saying, "If you believe in evolution, then you believe the egg came first; if you reject evolution, you believe it’s the chicken."
In this case, what’s true is true no matter what you believe. We can argue all we want about whether Genesis is literal or evolution is true, but our belief won’t change the truth an iota.
I like odd ball off topic posts I keeps things interesting. BTW: Perhaps the egg is Gods way of showing that all life originated with a single cell. As it still does today.
So "Answers in Genesis would agree that chickens [micro] evolved." Not just "evolved" in the normal sense of the word. Breeding is further explained in footnote #5 of the AiG link: "Here’s one example: more than 200 different breeds of dogs exist today, from the miniature poodle to the St. Bernard—all of which have descended from one original dog “kind” (as have the wolf, dingo, etc.). Many other types of animals— cat kind, horse kind, cow kind, etc.—have similarly been naturally and selectively bred to achieve the wonderful variation in species that we have today. God “programmed” this variety into the genetic code of all animal kinds—even humankind! God also made it impossible for the basic “kinds” of animals to breed and reproduce with each other. For example, cats and dogs cannot breed to make a new type of creature. This is by God’s design, and it is one fact that makes evolution impossible" Thanks for the clarification.
I don't think AiG would say all cats today coming from just two cats post-flood is evidence of "evolution" but of instead of "breeding." Breeding is observable science. Unless I've read their articles wrong. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/real…
AiG uses the term "microevolution" as opposed to "macroevolution." Microevolution is true, they say, and macroevolution is false. So they don't mind using evolution for change "within a kind" or breeding.
They just like to specify that it's microevolution.
One of their pages has this sentence: "Microevolution, formation of races, is a fact."
Another page has: "That is, the processes of mutation, selection, and sexual recombination all produce variation within kind (microevolution—or creationist adaptation) …" [parentheses in the quote are theirs].
I'm not trying to stir up the creation-evolution debate in this post or these comments. It was just a fun talk about the chicken and the egg. I was trying to be careful to limit myself to what AiG agrees with.
Btw, this is not really a Bible vs. evolution topic. Even Answers in Genesis would agree that chickens evolved. While they don't specify how wide a "kind" is, there is no doubt that they would say chickens, guinea hens, and a few other fowl probably all had a common descendant on the ark.
They've suggested that there was only one cat on the ark from which all lions, tigers, jaguars, ocelots, and domestic kitty cats descended.
If I believe in evolution, shouldn't the chicken come from a creature that is pre chicken? If that is the case, then does the chicken only become a chicken in the embyo or as it is affected by the environment? I guess you have to decide when you start calling the creature a chicken. This is very mysterious.