After my previous post, I noticed that in this forum the Spherical Earther’s and Evolutionist liked the throw around irrelevant scientific information and pull things out of the hat, just like a magician does to fool the public, so this one is just for you.
What came first the chicken or the egg?
As a Flat Earther we believe in a Creator, God, we believe that the chicken came first because GOD created male and female which mated to have off-spring. End of story for us!!!
But for you on the other hand the issue is very important, since Evolution is the creation of life, the foundation of your Religion.
So how did the life of the chicken begin, as an egg or as a chicken?
I would also like to hear from them, with what did the first chicken mate with, in order to have off-spring?
They could say that the first chicken was a mutation from another “species”, like X-Men in the comics, which they could be right, but I would then like them to point out a mutation that has occurred in nature that was beneficial to life and not a hindrance.
Also it would be nice if they can prove that this mutation did not violate the second law of thermodynamics, that from a higher state we always go to a lower state?
And finally I would like to know how did the first creature that set foot on Earth reproduced. Was it self-reproducing, which would be a very efficient way to have off-spring, if so, why then did it digress to male and female, which is a very inefficient process.
I would like to hear what the Evolutionist Priest believe and how do they scientifically justify their belief that the chicken came first or the egg came first.
I really believe that they will not try to answer the question or give any scientific justification, because the subject is too hard for them, but wait, it could all be due to refraction…
There is so much pure bullshit here it isn't funny.
This has nothing to do with FE. It is just religious garbage.
At least this time you said you believe instead of know.
Evolution is not the creation of life. It acts on existing life. It also isn't religious in any sense, instead it is scientific, based upon observations.
Also, unlike your religious BS, it can explain things rather than pushing the problem back.
You have no explanation for the origin of life itself, all you have is God did it, but where did God come from?
If God can simply exist without cause, why not a chicken?
Do you think your god is less than a chicken?
You see to have no idea of how speciation/evolution works either.
Evolution isn't a single entity evolving magically like in Pokemon. It is a group evolving together with traits slowly arising.
It is also gradual, such that there is no noticeable change between the 2 generations.
The "chicken" line would be an arbitrary line in the sand.
A wonderful example of this is ring species. This is where you have a group of organisms in a ring (or part or more), which can then be broken into sub groups.
A can breed with A and B, but no others, B can breed with A, B and C, but no others. C can breed with B, C and D, but no others and so on.
Because of the poor definition of species, as A and C cannot breed with each other, they have to be different species.
But B can be considered as part of A or C, as it can breed with them.
But if you include C with D, then B can't be with C as C can't breed with D.
You cannot tell where one species ends and the other begins.
But you can make it much clearer, wipe out all bar a small set of A, C, E, etc. That leaves them as clear distinction between the species.
Evolution through time works much the same (when you ignore branches), after all, that is how these ring species came to be. You have a species evolving (ignoring the branches for now.
It starts off as A, goes to B, then C, then D. It is clear that A and C are different species, but you can't tell where one finishes and one starts.
If you could pull them out of their position in time, then A could breed with B, but not C and so on just like the above.
If it wasn't for C, A and B would likely be grouped as the same species.
But you can't figure out where to distinguish between A and C, splitting them into 2 species, so all you are left with is a line in the sand.
Perhaps an even simpler example is this:
On the outside ring of this, where does it stop being red and start being purple?
If you wish to claim there is some colour in between, then sub that in for purple and repeat.
The simple fact is, you can't. There isn't a clear delineation. It is an arbitrary line in the sand.
If you were to compare any 2 close by points, you would say they are the same colour, either red or purple or something else. You wouldn't be able to find a single example where one of them is one colour and the other is clearly another.
The same applies to evolution.
The chicken didn't just pop into existence by itself.
It evolved as a group. As such, it would be able to breed with other members of its group as the entire group slowly evolved.
As for which came first, it depends on what you mean by egg. If you mean an egg in general, they were around since long before birds. If you mean a chicken egg, then is that an egg laid by a chicken or an egg a chicken hatches from? Or are you just going based upon similarity to today, in which case it depends upon which mutation came last to pass the arbitrary line in the sand.
There have been plenty of mutations in nature that are beneficial.
One example is a rare mutation which makes people immune to aids. A more common example is the evolution of bacteria, making them resistant to antibiotics.
No, this doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics, not any more than people eating and living and reproducing.
The second law is that the entire system will tend to disorder.
If there was no energy (and thus entropy) input, the entire system would decay. But there is energy input, which means more ordered sub-systems can arise.
Yes, the first life was self-reproducing. Yes, that can be quite efficient, but it means all the life is basically the same, with very little room for adaptation.
This causes 2 problems, one is that it is susceptible to changes in the environment and thus could easily be wiped out (think about how decimating anti-biotics can be to bacteria which aren't immune to them). It also means another form of life which is more adaptable can better use the environment, even the existing one, and then use up all the resources making you starve/die.
As such, when sexual reproduction came about, with its reduced rate, it allowed a higher rate of adaptation, which meant that live (or its soon descendants) were better able to utilise the environment and thus take over.
There are no evolutionist priests. There are scientists that study evolution.