Questions About Adam and Eve

[timtofly]

I thought that was settled, because only a chicken has the means to "create" the substance that is needed in the formation of said egg. The egg is just a shell and cannot produces anything.

 

[Hygro]

but when I hit the sort unit button in civ4 it starts from the bottom up so egg comes first ;D

 

[Borachio]

Yeah, chicken or egg?

It's one of those questions best sorted by gradualism, perhaps.

So that, while you can say at one point in time there is no chicken-egg-laying chicken and no chicken-laid eggs, and at some later point in time there is, it's not possible to say at what precise point in time there is a chicken-laid egg and a chicken-egg-laying chicken.

The same argument is used in abortion. At one point there's just a bunch of cells, at another a human being. But precisely when the bunch of cells turns into a human being is impossible to say.
(I don't subscribe to this notion, though. Don't ask - it's complicated.)

And gradualism only helps with gradual evolution, not the punctuated kind. Or maybe it does? Since gradualism can be applied to the periods of punctuated evolution (in between the periods of stasis, where there's little or no evolution) too.

 

[peter grimes]

The basic premise of gradualism holds no matter what. Every viable offspring is able to make with its immediate ancestors - at least, in the sense that they aren't separate species. At no point did an animal give birth to an offspring that was not what we would consider not the same species.

 

[timtofly]

It is all in the cell formation process any ways. That is why there is technically no separate species in evolutionary terms. At one point the "branches" of each species group did come from the same parent, yet the branches are so far removed over time, that it is impossible to mate in this time frame. Unless of course you lean toward the other alternative. We, at least it seems, most are past the need for even missing links. We just assume there was a separation of branches and the matter is settled.

 

[Borachio]

Indeed.

I'm rather struck by the idea that all organisms are related. It seems a much more powerful idea than the creationist one: each species individually crafted and man given dominion over all the others by God, for no other reason than just because.

And it could provide a more consistent moral framework than the conventionally religious one. Should one be of such a mind. (I only mention it because religious people very often seem to think that without their particular God mankind would be essentially adrift and amoral.)

 

[timtofly]

Indeed.

I'm rather struck by the idea that all organisms are related. It seems a much more powerful idea than the creationist one: each species individually crafted and man given dominion over all the others by God, for no other reason than just because.

And it could provide a more consistent moral framework than the conventionally religious one. Should one be of such a mind. (I only mention it because religious people very often seem to think that without their particular God mankind would be essentially adrift and amoral.)

I am pretty sure that mankind can be as amoral or as moral as they set their mind to with or without God.

 

[Borachio]

Absolutely. I quite agree. And I'm happy to let mankind get on with it. I'll handle my bit. Mankind can handle its.