Surely you don't think that political event reporting follows a different process, do you? (Except for the cases where the reporter or editor has a specific partisan bias, of course - I'm just talking about the cases where the reporter is *trying* to say something accurate, and when the politician wasn't deliberately lying or more clueless than average.)
Think about any event you've been at which you also saw reported in the news. Are events that you weren't at likely to have been reported any more accurately? And think about the accuracy of typical eyewitness reports (which includes your own, of course...)
If an egg is identical to a chicken egg, is it a chicken egg even though its mother was probably a Red Jungle Fowl? Their eggs are pretty much identical except for having embryos of slightly different birds inside, and there's more variation between chicken eggs than between the average chicken egg and the average jungle fowl egg.
And creationists may argue that it was a product of crossbreeding between previously created species of birds that all pretty much taste like chicken and have eggs that taste like chicken eggs, but aren't the same as domestic chickens.
Eggs were 21 days earlier, and just don't get mentioned because they're not that interesting until they turn into birds or until somebody else is there to eat them?
Chickens appear to have ancestors in several different kinds of jungle fowl in Asia, and there's a good chance that they became chickens because of humans breeding them together as opposed to having already been chickens when Man showed up and domesticated them.
I'd highly recommend that you go read Francis Collins's book "The Language Of God", about how genetics works. He's one of the Human Genome Project folks, and Christian. I found the book somewhat disappointing - he found Christianity through the basic C.S.Lewis type of search for meaning in the world, and doesn't really relate his faith much to his genetics work, but it's a good starting point on genetics, and on how deeply genetics and evolution are wrapped together, and on how it's perfectly possible to believe both.
And the meaning of the Bible changes all the time, as we learn more about the cultures the writers were living in and therefore about what the things they wrote would have meant to the people hearing them.
That's one of the things I really like about psychedelics - since I know intellectually before the trip that anything that happens is just the drugs talking, I don't have to worry about whether I'll need to make serious philosophical or religious decisions based on what I saw there. It's not a shamanic vision quest, it's just entertainment, though some of it might be emotionally or intellectually enlightening about how my head works. (Of course most of it's stuff about how things are really shiny, and trees are so tall and green and friendly! and sometimes have faces in them that change when the wind is blowing, and the Grateful Dead are, like,, Really Cosmic, man! Or some of it's about how some activities are just way too complicated to do while tripping, and how funny that is that you can't even finish your nachos before they get cold because each piece had such an interesting texture, and how glad you are that you at least had the sense to do this while walking and not driving.) But sometimes you get different perspectives on the world that still seem to make sense afterward.
There are some drugs out there that trigger the neurotransmitters that help you decide that what you're seeing is real as opposed to your imagination. It's been a while since I saw that talk, and the speaker didn't provide printed copies for the conference, but I vaguely remember that it was DMT or peyote or something in that direction; haven't tried the stuff myself.
Nope - the proteins that make the eggshells work aren't significantly different here between chickens and jungle fowl; just the DNA. The protein bits are really more of a study on how hard-shelled bird eggs work, as opposed to soft leathery dinosaur eggs, and maybe also about differences in different kinds of bird eggs.
Yeah, pretty much - or at least like free-range chicken as opposed to tasteless inbred underexercised factory-farm chickens.
As far as I know, I've never eaten Jungle Fowl, but chickens in Hawaii do mix with them enough that it's possible I had some on my first trips over there (before I was vegetarian.) I've probably had eggs that were more jungle fowl than chicken, but you can't really tell unless you know who collected them.
The Ancient Greeks had all kinds of notions about the origins of the current state of the world. While Darwin's theories about the origin of species through natural selection weren't part of them, that doesn't mean that there weren't some Greeks who thought the world was always changing and others who thought that it was always the same and others who had more complex alternative ideas.
However, your argument that the first egg-laying animal came before the first egg is at least interesting. It doesn't apply to chickens per se, or even to birds, but it's a pretty good argument, and is probably even correct, though enough weird stuff has evolved in the last few billion years of biology that it's not necessarily so.
Was it actually evolution or human-guided crossbreeding of various chicken ancestors? We can't tell at the moment, and history doesn't appear to have recorded it for us. (That's not always clear - we keep hearing cases like "Scientists discover new mammal species in Indonesia! Then they discover specimens of it for sale in village market. Locals say 'was tasty'.") That mutation may not have happened in the gametes of the either parents of the first chicken; it could have just as well have occurred in one of that chicken's ancestors.
I'll leave the question of when birds evolved from dinosaurs to people who actually know what they're talking about. But chickens are far more recent, around 7-10000 years ago, evolving or being crossbred from various kinds of jungle fowl.
No, you're not correct. First of all, chickens might have originated by natural selection in an isolated bunch of jungle fowl, or alternatively they might have originated from human-directed cross-breeding between different types of jungle fowl, with two different not-quite-chicken parents.
And more importantly, while evolution is mostly about small changes over long periods of time, there's still some point where you draw the line and decide that the child is a different species. Doesn't bother Darwin any, nor does it bother the chicken.
If a chicken evolves in a forest, and nobody's there to see it, does it still make a sound?
Does a "chicken egg" mean "an egg that will grow into a chicken" or "an egg laid by a chicken"? That's a language question, not a scientific one.
Even if it's the former, how much does the egg reflect the mother's genetics as opposed to the child's? Is the fertilized cell growing into the entire egg, using nutrients from the mother's body, or is most of the egg produced by the mother's body with the fertilized cell only contributing the bits in the middle that grow into the new chicken? And do the differences between jungle fowl and chickens affect the eggs, or are they in other parts of the bird?
Whoosh! And monkeys are pretty good at making immense leaps, and as their smarter descendants, we can make immense leaps through mental processes alone, without requiring springy tree branches to help! (Not sure if that applies to "monkies" or "Monkees", though...)
Whether you can find such a retrovirus or not doesn't affect the question. The work was done in modern chickens, but it wasn't about the specific differences between modern chicken eggs and red jungle fowl eggs or other bird eggs, it was about how chicken egg shells work (and is presumably pretty much identical to how most other birds' egg shells work.) So even if it was a retrovirus, it was presumably way pre-chicken.
Even most of the people who don't believe in evolution accept the idea that you can cross-breed animals to get different animals - which is part of why we're calling them "chickens" as opposed to various kinds of jungle fowl. (Not that the folks who did that crossbreeding were necessarily that picky about what kind of domesticated birds they had.)
But there are always logic-deficient people around - they're called "children", and questions like this are part of how they learn logic.
Your ICAAP article does a good survey, and shows that under almost all kinds of reasoning, the egg came first. (It might not have been a modern-chicken egg, but it was definitely an egg.) The exception is the "dictionary-definition method" ("chicken" comes before "egg" in English-language dictionaries), but that argument is somewhat deficient in that it fails to identify which language was first used to pose the question - chickens also come first in Latin, but eggs come first in Greek, and Wikipedia indicates that domesticated chickens had probably reached ancient Greece by the time of the philosophers.
(Assertions by Helena Blavatsky are at best suspect as evidence for anything other than her own immense creativity, though her assertion Aristotle and/or Plato believed that both have been around forever does illustrate that there are more than two answers to the question, even if there's no reason to believe they came from Aristotle or Plato or that those worthy gentlemen were at all correct.)
But hard shells are found in many other birds, so they predate the chicken, and at article doesn't say anything about comparisons between how the eggshell proteins work in modern chickens vs. Red Jungle Fowl vs. other kinds of birds - it just uses chickens as a convenient research subject.
The egg that had the first chicken embryo in it might still have been a not-quite-chicken egg. Depends on what the differences are between the first "real" chicken and its parents - did they include the structure of the eggshells or the interior plumbing of the egg, or was that stuff all the same and maybe the feathers or feet or eyes or something were different. I think the egg would have been close enough to chicken-egg-like that it still wins, even if it's not identical.
Also, it's not clear that chickens evolved through natural selection - proto-chickens did, but the chickens themselves may have come from human-managed crossbreeding of multiple kinds of domesticated birds.
It's not necessarily mutation - that first chicken had two parents that were kind of chicken like. Maybe it was mutations, maybe it was cross-breeding, probably some combination of the two. Anyway, it's not-quite-chicken mom laid a chicken egg that grew into a chicken. There's also the question of whether that egg was strictly a chicken egg - it had a chicken embryo in it, but might have had the structure of a chicken egg, or it might have had the structure of a not-quite-chicken egg. Either way, it would have been pretty close.
Another argument is that the first chicken egg (laid by not-quite-chickens) might not have successfully grown into a chicken; something could have eaten it first, so the first actual chicken could have been from the second or third chicken egg...
I see no reason for my news reading to be linked to my Youtube account and then linked to my Gmail account and my browsing habits - I'd rather keep them separate, thank you. Google keeps asking if I'd like to link them, and I want a "No, and don't ask me again" button to check.
Even 51W isn't enough to run a full-sized computer and monitor, but that's using all four pairs for power, and 25.5 certainly isn't enough. And most of the PoE that's deployed is either standard 15.4 watt stuff or pre-standard Cisco proprietary PoE which is even lower power. Basically the 25.5W stuff is mostly going to let you run a VOIP phone with a fancier display.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose it's probably better than facepalming while holding a chicken....
Tasted like chicken...
Surely you don't think that political event reporting follows a different process, do you? (Except for the cases where the reporter or editor has a specific partisan bias, of course - I'm just talking about the cases where the reporter is *trying* to say something accurate, and when the politician wasn't deliberately lying or more clueless than average.)
Think about any event you've been at which you also saw reported in the news. Are events that you weren't at likely to have been reported any more accurately? And think about the accuracy of typical eyewitness reports (which includes your own, of course...)
If an egg is identical to a chicken egg, is it a chicken egg even though its mother was probably a Red Jungle Fowl? Their eggs are pretty much identical except for having embryos of slightly different birds inside, and there's more variation between chicken eggs than between the average chicken egg and the average jungle fowl egg.
And creationists may argue that it was a product of crossbreeding between previously created species of birds that all pretty much taste like chicken and have eggs that taste like chicken eggs, but aren't the same as domestic chickens.
Eggs were 21 days earlier, and just don't get mentioned because they're not that interesting until they turn into birds or until somebody else is there to eat them?
Chickens appear to have ancestors in several different kinds of jungle fowl in Asia, and there's a good chance that they became chickens because of humans breeding them together as opposed to having already been chickens when Man showed up and domesticated them.
I'd highly recommend that you go read Francis Collins's book "The Language Of God", about how genetics works. He's one of the Human Genome Project folks, and Christian. I found the book somewhat disappointing - he found Christianity through the basic C.S.Lewis type of search for meaning in the world, and doesn't really relate his faith much to his genetics work, but it's a good starting point on genetics, and on how deeply genetics and evolution are wrapped together, and on how it's perfectly possible to believe both.
And the meaning of the Bible changes all the time, as we learn more about the cultures the writers were living in and therefore about what the things they wrote would have meant to the people hearing them.
That's one of the things I really like about psychedelics - since I know intellectually before the trip that anything that happens is just the drugs talking, I don't have to worry about whether I'll need to make serious philosophical or religious decisions based on what I saw there. It's not a shamanic vision quest, it's just entertainment, though some of it might be emotionally or intellectually enlightening about how my head works. (Of course most of it's stuff about how things are really shiny, and trees are so tall and green and friendly! and sometimes have faces in them that change when the wind is blowing, and the Grateful Dead are, like,, Really Cosmic, man! Or some of it's about how some activities are just way too complicated to do while tripping, and how funny that is that you can't even finish your nachos before they get cold because each piece had such an interesting texture, and how glad you are that you at least had the sense to do this while walking and not driving.) But sometimes you get different perspectives on the world that still seem to make sense afterward.
There are some drugs out there that trigger the neurotransmitters that help you decide that what you're seeing is real as opposed to your imagination. It's been a while since I saw that talk, and the speaker didn't provide printed copies for the conference, but I vaguely remember that it was DMT or peyote or something in that direction; haven't tried the stuff myself.
Nope - the proteins that make the eggshells work aren't significantly different here between chickens and jungle fowl; just the DNA. The protein bits are really more of a study on how hard-shelled bird eggs work, as opposed to soft leathery dinosaur eggs, and maybe also about differences in different kinds of bird eggs.
Yeah, pretty much - or at least like free-range chicken as opposed to tasteless inbred underexercised factory-farm chickens.
As far as I know, I've never eaten Jungle Fowl, but chickens in Hawaii do mix with them enough that it's possible I had some on my first trips over there (before I was vegetarian.) I've probably had eggs that were more jungle fowl than chicken, but you can't really tell unless you know who collected them.
The Ancient Greeks had all kinds of notions about the origins of the current state of the world. While Darwin's theories about the origin of species through natural selection weren't part of them, that doesn't mean that there weren't some Greeks who thought the world was always changing and others who thought that it was always the same and others who had more complex alternative ideas.
However, your argument that the first egg-laying animal came before the first egg is at least interesting. It doesn't apply to chickens per se, or even to birds, but it's a pretty good argument, and is probably even correct, though enough weird stuff has evolved in the last few billion years of biology that it's not necessarily so.
It certainly makes it a more interesting question, but that doesn't mean everybody's talking about the same thing,
Was it actually evolution or human-guided crossbreeding of various chicken ancestors? We can't tell at the moment, and history doesn't appear to have recorded it for us. (That's not always clear - we keep hearing cases like "Scientists discover new mammal species in Indonesia! Then they discover specimens of it for sale in village market. Locals say 'was tasty'.") That mutation may not have happened in the gametes of the either parents of the first chicken; it could have just as well have occurred in one of that chicken's ancestors.
The important bits look to be "this is how the proteins and stuff work that allow development of hard eggshells in domestic chickens."
I'll leave the question of when birds evolved from dinosaurs to people who actually know what they're talking about. But chickens are far more recent, around 7-10000 years ago, evolving or being crossbred from various kinds of jungle fowl.
No, you're not correct. First of all, chickens might have originated by natural selection in an isolated bunch of jungle fowl, or alternatively they might have originated from human-directed cross-breeding between different types of jungle fowl, with two different not-quite-chicken parents.
And more importantly, while evolution is mostly about small changes over long periods of time, there's still some point where you draw the line and decide that the child is a different species. Doesn't bother Darwin any, nor does it bother the chicken.
If a chicken evolves in a forest, and nobody's there to see it, does it still make a sound?
That's the first good argument I've heard for that position...
Does a "chicken egg" mean "an egg that will grow into a chicken" or "an egg laid by a chicken"? That's a language question, not a scientific one.
Even if it's the former, how much does the egg reflect the mother's genetics as opposed to the child's? Is the fertilized cell growing into the entire egg, using nutrients from the mother's body, or is most of the egg produced by the mother's body with the fertilized cell only contributing the bits in the middle that grow into the new chicken? And do the differences between jungle fowl and chickens affect the eggs, or are they in other parts of the bird?
Whoosh! And monkeys are pretty good at making immense leaps, and as their smarter descendants, we can make immense leaps through mental processes alone, without requiring springy tree branches to help! (Not sure if that applies to "monkies" or "Monkees", though...)
Whether you can find such a retrovirus or not doesn't affect the question. The work was done in modern chickens, but it wasn't about the specific differences between modern chicken eggs and red jungle fowl eggs or other bird eggs, it was about how chicken egg shells work (and is presumably pretty much identical to how most other birds' egg shells work.) So even if it was a retrovirus, it was presumably way pre-chicken.
Even most of the people who don't believe in evolution accept the idea that you can cross-breed animals to get different animals - which is part of why we're calling them "chickens" as opposed to various kinds of jungle fowl. (Not that the folks who did that crossbreeding were necessarily that picky about what kind of domesticated birds they had.)
But there are always logic-deficient people around - they're called "children", and questions like this are part of how they learn logic.
Your ICAAP article does a good survey, and shows that under almost all kinds of reasoning, the egg came first. (It might not have been a modern-chicken egg, but it was definitely an egg.) The exception is the "dictionary-definition method" ("chicken" comes before "egg" in English-language dictionaries), but that argument is somewhat deficient in that it fails to identify which language was first used to pose the question - chickens also come first in Latin, but eggs come first in Greek, and Wikipedia indicates that domesticated chickens had probably reached ancient Greece by the time of the philosophers.
(Assertions by Helena Blavatsky are at best suspect as evidence for anything other than her own immense creativity, though her assertion Aristotle and/or Plato believed that both have been around forever does illustrate that there are more than two answers to the question, even if there's no reason to believe they came from Aristotle or Plato or that those worthy gentlemen were at all correct.)
But hard shells are found in many other birds, so they predate the chicken, and at article doesn't say anything about comparisons between how the eggshell proteins work in modern chickens vs. Red Jungle Fowl vs. other kinds of birds - it just uses chickens as a convenient research subject.
The egg that had the first chicken embryo in it might still have been a not-quite-chicken egg. Depends on what the differences are between the first "real" chicken and its parents - did they include the structure of the eggshells or the interior plumbing of the egg, or was that stuff all the same and maybe the feathers or feet or eyes or something were different. I think the egg would have been close enough to chicken-egg-like that it still wins, even if it's not identical.
Also, it's not clear that chickens evolved through natural selection - proto-chickens did, but the chickens themselves may have come from human-managed crossbreeding of multiple kinds of domesticated birds.
It's not necessarily mutation - that first chicken had two parents that were kind of chicken like. Maybe it was mutations, maybe it was cross-breeding, probably some combination of the two. Anyway, it's not-quite-chicken mom laid a chicken egg that grew into a chicken. There's also the question of whether that egg was strictly a chicken egg - it had a chicken embryo in it, but might have had the structure of a chicken egg, or it might have had the structure of a not-quite-chicken egg. Either way, it would have been pretty close.
Another argument is that the first chicken egg (laid by not-quite-chickens) might not have successfully grown into a chicken; something could have eaten it first, so the first actual chicken could have been from the second or third chicken egg...
I see no reason for my news reading to be linked to my Youtube account and then linked to my Gmail account and my browsing habits - I'd rather keep them separate, thank you.
Google keeps asking if I'd like to link them, and I want a "No, and don't ask me again" button to check.
Even 51W isn't enough to run a full-sized computer and monitor, but that's using all four pairs for power, and 25.5 certainly isn't enough. And most of the PoE that's deployed is either standard 15.4 watt stuff or pre-standard Cisco proprietary PoE which is even lower power. Basically the 25.5W stuff is mostly going to let you run a VOIP phone with a fancier display.