LurfysMa wrote:
> On 29 May 2006 17:33:07 -0700, "Blair P. Houghton"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Curly Sue wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 May 2006 20:50:22 -0700, isw > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Egg-laying reptiles predated birds by a bunch of millions of years. Any
> >> >"scientist" who just figured that out ought to turn in his union card.
> >>
> >> So what you're saying is that question should have been: which came
> >> first, the lizard (or fish) or the egg?
> >
> >Well, technically, the "egg" goes back to our days as single-celled
> >organisms (bacteria, et al).
>
> Irrelevant and incorrect.

Uh, wrong and wrong. Part of the paradox is figuring out what the
question is supposed to mean.

> (a) The chicken-and-egg debate is referring to chicken eggs -- not the
> eggs from any earlier organism. Otherwise, the whole thing is trivial.

It's still trivial, as the chicken is still evolving.

> (b) Bacteria don't have eggs. Eggs are a byproduct of sex. Bacteria do
> not come in male and female -- this simply divide. No sex -- no eggs.

Once the chromosomes are in the egg, you can't tell how it got that
way. Sex isn't relevant.

> >Since then there have been refinements, such as eggs that could become
> >multi-celled organisms*
> >
> >I think the semantic hair the panel split was that it's not a chicken
> >until the thing coming out is a chicken, and before that it's something
> >else. And the determination is that the parents of the first chicken
> >weren't chickens, genetically speaking.
>
> But their eggs were chicken eggs, otherwise they would not have
> developed into a chicken. So I think you just proved that the eggs
> came first.

Yes, that's exactly what I just said. They weren't chickens, but their
egg was. What are you drinking?

--Blair