Subject: what appeared first?

Evolution doesn't have an aim and there is neither a suggested aim. I don't know what you're talking about, but evolution has already been proven. It's most definitely not religious, but scientific.

And if you say "evolution does not exist" then please tell me how many dog races you see nowadays and please tell me how many there were 500 years before.

also science is religious, as long as it stays scholastic and not become kybernetic.
thats´s not only my opinion. several philosophers and scientists said this decades or centuries before.
science depends on written down definitions and every definition means to reduce reality and categorize it to a lower standard.
everything written is reduction of speech, everything spoken is reduction of thoughts.
people (scientists) must use it though to interchange, but also must know about it´s insufficiency.

in german there is the word "bildung", which means much more than the essence of knowledge, education, intelligence, information and so on. i don´t know the english word for it. it means something like to know not get ready, but to try. if you think, this is not a reason to leave it alone then, it starts. the word is misused, like so many others, because it´s explanation can´t be written down without using stereotypes.

for example you took my post as possible statement evolution wouldn´t exist. it happened, because i had to reduce thoughts to a simple form, otherwise i had to write down dozens of sentences to explain a little bit more. if we would sit in front of one another, you wouldn´t have take it like this.

9 from 10 people would say, evolution means survival of the fittest, or stuff like that. they won´t ask, what fit means, what survival means and what makes an individuum exist (who am i, and if yes how many). evolution means open source in every second of existence and not a change of condition between former and later. you can´t prove something here, or even just believe, it has been.
take your example with the dog races. it suggests, there would be more of them nowadays and evolution would have make this possible. an aim of evolution to produce a high variability and number of dog races? you say, it´s proven there isn´t one. and if you look at regions in the world, where dogs must live for themselves, they look much more equal to one another than, let´s say here in neatherlands or germany. but was that, what you meant?

you see, it´s quite complicate to find a way to put thoughts into written form.

discussion isn´t pointless now, but it getting over the shore now and sun is shining outside.

this text is reduced and it may exist only between the lines.

dog races differentiation has NOTHING to do with evolution.
Besides, 500 years is like a second on the scale of evolution, so not even possible to notice any changes

I agree with you there. From a philosophical point of view you're absolute right, but you stated specifically 'in case of evolution...'. That's where I would disagree and misunderstood you cause evolution is nothing different from quantum mechanics or Newton's laws, to name something.

edit:
And survival of the fittest doesn't mean survival, but the possibility to generate offspring. Nature has some very amazing tricks for it and this goal is reach in very absurd manners.
Generally we can say that 'survival of the fittest means' that the individuals who are best capable of generating a healthy offspring which is highly capable to generate a healthy offspring itself, which is etc. has the best chance to maximize his account in the gene pool of a species after x generations.
(edited)

Dog race differentiantion = evolution. A couple of centuries ago the number of dog races was very small (don't pin me down on any numbers or historical data) and now we literally have tons. That's evolution made possible by artificial selection.

And evolution can be very fast and noticeable. Let me give you a example: a very deadly virus is originated somewhere on this planet and it gets spread quickly around the planet. Practically all people get infected and 99% of all people die, except for people with blue eyes. People with blue eyes have a survival chance of 25%. If this would occur, humans would almost homogeneously have blue eyes in less than one generation. That's a very clear distinctive characteristics.
And of course this example is somewhat absurd and the relation to eye colour is nonsense, but for malaria the relation to sickle cell disease is clearly there. In the western world the sickle cell gene is clearly disadvantageous cause as soon as two sickle cell alleles are combined in one person than that person has a substantial smaller 'chance of survival'. But in Africa the possession of one allele gives someone a much greater chance to survive a malaria infection. This has made the sickle cell gene (and also sickle cell disease) to be much more frequent in Africa.

Personally I believe that 99% of all the people don't understand what evolution really means. I know some very smart people who completely misinterpret evolution. For example: a friend of mine who is a drop-out university student once said to me that humans were born to kill each other off because that's how evolution works. I have had a very long discussion with him but I couldn't convince him that that's not how evolution works.

I also really think that my secondary school biology teacher (I went to a Christian school since my parents were Christian) who taught me the principles of evolution didn't even understand herself what the basics of evolution are.
(edited)

evolution is actually quite complicated once you get into it.

but whereas few would be idiotic enough to think they knew all about quantum mechanics or string theory after a couple of long forgotten school lessons and reading a newspaper article surprisingly intelligent people think they understand the theory of evolution and even think themselves qualified to find fault knowing almost nothing beyond a couple of phrases like 'survival of the fittest' or 'natural selection'!

Quantum mechanics is something very interesting and for me it's also very important. I personally believe (but of course I may be wrong) that the universe (that means everything) is completely deterministic. At secondary school and at the university I have been taught the Kopenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The equations are always the same, no matter which interpretation you prefer. The maths are quite simple. At that time I had difficulties with differentials equation, but when you understand that you see that it's really simple (of course this is not completely true as this will only provide you a basic understanding of what the theory is, not where it is derived from). The great problem with quantum mechanics is not understanding it, but understanding what it means. Scientists still don't agree and there are at least a dozen interpretations. The Kopenhagen interpretation is the most famous and most taught, but it conflicts with what I personally believe.

hmm im sure there is an actual answer... either the chicken evolved from bacteria and thus came first.. or, 2 birds crossed, and laid a few eggs which hatched chickens - so then the egg came first..

id say evolution though, and that the chicken came first, although it is losing the race :/

an egg has to be hatched over time so if the egg came first it HAD to be laid by something.. if that something was a different type of bird is the question...

I'm curious what you mean with 'the chicken evolved from bacteria' cause it's impossible that a bacteria divides itself while and that one of both cells grows out to an bacteria.

It's also impossible that a chicken evolved from something different than a bird.

It has already been mentioned here, but something which just could be called a chicken evolved from something which just couldn't be called a chicken.
(edited)

faith = chicken
-god put the first chicken on earth, the rest is easy...
-or ;-) whatever you wanna believe... for egg. ;-P "the big infinnate absolute great almighty chicken created everything incuding eggs."

science = egg
-eggs evolved from stardust or nothingness, like everything else (incuding chickens and other living organisms that come out of eggs.) -cause you don't need chickens to have eggs, it can be all sorts of animals or even ladies have eggs ;-)

PS:a planet or a cell could be 'classified' as eggs. ;-)
(edited)

search in internet these words

Shirali Muslimov

and u will notice who was first

o_O

when I talk about evolution, I talk about natural evolution, not evolution by selected cross breeding ... quite obvious I think.

And yes, youre right about virusses, but virusses are 'impossible' to put in the tree of life and thus you cannot compare them with 99.9% of living species (who are in the tree of life). Besides, you can start discussing if virusses are in fact living species ;) There are 4 or 5 rules of 'living' where they dont fit into :)

What was first: the chicken or the egg?



There are different types of questions. Some questions seem easily answerable, but, when really thinking about them are not. Some questions seem easy and are so. Some questions seem hard and indeed are hard. And the fourth category are the questions that seem hard but are easy to answer. In this webpage, I'll discuss a question that fits in at least one of these categories; I'll let you judge which one it is.

A question that is simple to state but that seems hard is the following, almost rethorical one:

What was first: the chicken or the egg.

Folklore is that this question has no answer. If one would answers chicken, then the reply is: but what did the chicken came from?. An egg, of course, so but when one answers egg to the question, then the reply is: but who made the egg? Well, a chicken, but then, where did that chicken came from? So, indeed, it seems this question has no answer. So, is this `chicken-or-egg' question really unanswerable - a paradoxal question?




this question has no answer!!!!!!!!!!!!! and now plz shut up everyone! :p

Yes it does. The answer is either chicken or egg. One of them had to have come into existence first, no? :)

Whether or not we can give a definite answer, or if this question falls victim to infinite regress, is a different question alltogether. :P

Yes it does. The answer is either chicken or egg. One of them had to have come into existence first, no? :)

What about at exactly the same time, a possibility, no? ;o)