It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Which came first dinosaur or the egg

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
First there are two birds that aren't chickens, they mate, due to mutation and various other processes they produce an egg with qualities not shared by the parents. The byproduct is a chicken. These new traits are dominant traits. This chicken for various reasons is very successful at breeding passing on these new dominant traits. As the traits are dominant when said chicken breeds with the species of not quite "chickens" it's new dominant traits keep getting passed on til we have a viable species of, well chickens. The first of which came from an egg from "non" chickens.

Although due to the transitory step by step process of small changes, is actually really hard to determine when a species stops being one species and becomes another. Honestly I'm not sure when that change from variations of the same species to a new species officially occurs. But either way, egg definitely comes first with one exception, whatever creature bore the first egg came before the first egg. After that though, any creature that was evolved from a creature that bore eggs came from the eggs of the creature before it.
But the question still is which came first.

The egg, which could be any creature growing on the inside. seeing as in the beginning it is merely yolk then given time becomes a life form.

Also of which would somehow magically have had to have another of its kind arise at the exact same time it did, otherwise it could not mate.

Also if that did somehow happen. The two could not possibly make a whole species on their own seeing as mother, daughter, brother and/or sister genes mating as one tend to create abnormalities.




posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: awareness10
I think everything happened all at once, like the ultimate Orgasmic experience.
I disagree.



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: ssenerawa

originally posted by: Barcs
The chicken or egg thing is meant to be a philosophical debate. But the only true answer is that neither came first. They came together from a previous ancestor. Evolution is about changes in a population. Basically, there was some evolutionary advantage to having a hard external egg, rather than an internal one. Whatever it was, it helped the population breed more effectively, so after that particular mutation, the trait spread all across the species.

You will never trace it back to a single creature or a single egg and say, "aha! That's what started it all!". That is kind of a creationist mindset, looking back to a single individual or egg as the beginning of that entire genetic line with no previous ancestors or parents.


Ok, so neither the internal or external egg came first is what you're saying? And the the animals environment made it change the way it gave birth?


Yes, to the first question, both came together.

As for the 2nd, no it wasn't just the environment, it was also genetic mutations that changed a particular gene sequence during conception. A mutation occurs, the gene is expressed, then it either has a beneficial, neutral or negative affect, based on the environment. If beneficial, it spreads across the species because more of these genes are passed down. If neutral, it doesn't affect it at all, and if negative they will likely not pass down the genes at all so that negative trait disappears.

The dinosaur and the egg came from a previous ancestor and previous egg. If you go back far enough, you get to asexual reproduction that doesn't require an egg at all. Eventually sexual reproduction took over because genetic diversity is very important. At first, it was likely not an egg that received the genetic material from the other, but over time it developed into one as male and female became separate sexes and the egg led to better protection of the developing fetus.


So a non dinosaur birth a dinosaur? Why do people think a different species of animal grew into another? They were always different. A DNA sequence is never going to alter just because a creature needs it to


Genetic mutations are usually very minor. You will never have a non dinosaur give birth to a dinosaur, or a cat give birth to a dog. Those are sudden major changes, and evolution does not work that way. What you would have is the dinosaur's ancestor slowly changing over time into what we know as a dinosaur (very broad description I know). Basically it's the accumulation of numerous mutations or traits over time that change the appearance and genetic make up of a creature enough so that they cannot reproduce with the original ancestor from tens of thousands of years ago or more and deviates enough from the original to be classified as a different species.
Well said I see what you're saying regarding the mutation theory, but in retrospect you're saying let's say a elephants and spiders come from a common ancestor.



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ssenerawa

Wrong there is plenty of species that do not require both sexes as well as some can actually change sex. But especially in the realm of microorganisms anything is possible. Evolution can explain all the way back to the firSt microorganism what it can explain is how that first cell became a living organism. But it doesn't have to its not part of evolution.
edit on 7/16/16 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ssenerawa

Wrong there is plenty of species that do not require both sexes as well as some can actually change sex. But especially in the realm of microorganisms anything is possible. Evolution can explain all the way back to the firSt microorganism what it can explain is how that first cell became a living organism. But it doesn't have to its not part of evolution.
Yes, but any creature that gave birth to an egg sexual and/or asexually must have had to come from an egg also.



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ssenerawa

Wrong there is plenty of species that do not require both sexes as well as some can actually change sex. But especially in the realm of microorganisms anything is possible. Evolution can explain all the way back to the firSt microorganism what it can explain is how that first cell became a living organism. But it doesn't have to its not part of evolution.
^^^
edit on 16-7-2016 by ssenerawa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: ssenerawa

originally posted by: Barcs
The chicken or egg thing is meant to be a philosophical debate. But the only true answer is that neither came first. They came together from a previous ancestor. Evolution is about changes in a population. Basically, there was some evolutionary advantage to having a hard external egg, rather than an internal one. Whatever it was, it helped the population breed more effectively, so after that particular mutation, the trait spread all across the species.

You will never trace it back to a single creature or a single egg and say, "aha! That's what started it all!". That is kind of a creationist mindset, looking back to a single individual or egg as the beginning of that entire genetic line with no previous ancestors or parents.


Ok, so neither the internal or external egg came first is what you're saying? And the the animals environment made it change the way it gave birth?


Yes, to the first question, both came together.

As for the 2nd, no it wasn't just the environment, it was also genetic mutations that changed a particular gene sequence during conception. A mutation occurs, the gene is expressed, then it either has a beneficial, neutral or negative affect, based on the environment. If beneficial, it spreads across the species because more of these genes are passed down. If neutral, it doesn't affect it at all, and if negative they will likely not pass down the genes at all so that negative trait disappears.

The dinosaur and the egg came from a previous ancestor and previous egg. If you go back far enough, you get to asexual reproduction that doesn't require an egg at all. Eventually sexual reproduction took over because genetic diversity is very important. At first, it was likely not an egg that received the genetic material from the other, but over time it developed into one as male and female became separate sexes and the egg led to better protection of the developing fetus.


So a non dinosaur birth a dinosaur? Why do people think a different species of animal grew into another? They were always different. A DNA sequence is never going to alter just because a creature needs it to


Genetic mutations are usually very minor. You will never have a non dinosaur give birth to a dinosaur, or a cat give birth to a dog. Those are sudden major changes, and evolution does not work that way. What you would have is the dinosaur's ancestor slowly changing over time into what we know as a dinosaur (very broad description I know). Basically it's the accumulation of numerous mutations or traits over time that change the appearance and genetic make up of a creature enough so that they cannot reproduce with the original ancestor from tens of thousands of years ago or more and deviates enough from the original to be classified as a different species.
^^^



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ssenerawa

What about creatures that could reproduce BOTH sexually and asexually? If you are really looking for the origin of the first egg, you need to find the first egg producing creature. This is difficult because internal organs don't fossilize, generally only bones and hard eggs. Don't forget, even mammals that don't lay eggs, still produce internal eggs. Like I mentioned, the egg most likely started as something very simple, like a thin layer around the fetus that was beneficial because it protected it from harm. Less fetus's were damaged as a result so the trait was passed down to more and more surviving members of the species.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: ssenerawa

What about creatures that could reproduce BOTH sexually and asexually? If you are really looking for the origin of the first egg, you need to find the first egg producing creature. This is difficult because internal organs don't fossilize, generally only bones and hard eggs. Don't forget, even mammals that don't lay eggs, still produce internal eggs. Like I mentioned, the egg most likely started as something very simple, like a thin layer around the fetus that was beneficial because it protected it from harm. Less fetus's were damaged as a result so the trait was passed down to more and more surviving members of the species.

question isn't to be taken literally, more on the side of which came first the dinosaur(creator) or the building blocks of life(the egg).



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa

question isn't to be taken literally, more on the side of which came first the dinosaur(creator) or the building blocks of life(the egg).


There was no first egg laying creature.

The question just shows a misunderstanding of how it works.

Are you really willing to understand it enough to ask the correct questions?
Or will you just tell me that you do understand?



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: ssenerawa

question isn't to be taken literally, more on the side of which came first the dinosaur(creator) or the building blocks of life(the egg).


There was no first egg laying creature.

The question just shows a misunderstanding of how it works.

Are you really willing to understand it enough to ask the correct questions?
Or will you just tell me that you do understand?
So they all came at the same time?



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ssenerawa

No they didn't all come at the same time either.

A similar question would be who was the first person to speak english.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: ssenerawa

No they didn't all come at the same time either.

A similar question would be who was the first person to speak english.

No it wouldn't. Elaborate



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ssenerawa

Well there was no first person to speak English, so it's another question that misunderstands the process.
That is the similarity I'm speaking of.

I can have a discussion easily with my parents as we speak the same language. Same applies to my parents. And to their parents etc. etc.

If I try to have a discussion with Shakespeare it would be very difficult.

So assuming I came from Shakespeare's line there is an unbroken line of English speakers, those close to each other can understand however the further away on the line they are the more differences and the less likely they are to understand.

Go further enough back and you will find a language completely different from English even tho each child from then until now could understand their parents.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa
No it wouldn't. Elaborate


Very interesting response however.

Unsure enough of what I'm saying to ask me to elaborate, yet still sure enough to say I'm wrong.

Doesn't really give me much hope that you are sincerely looking to understand.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: ssenerawa
No it wouldn't. Elaborate


Very interesting response however.

Unsure enough of what I'm saying to ask me to elaborate, yet still sure enough to say I'm wrong.

Doesn't really give me much hope that you are sincerely looking to understand.

I still don't understand try something instead of hypotheticals are you talking about evolution?



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ssenerawa

OK, what do you not understand?

Would you agree that there was no first person to speak english?



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: ssenerawa

OK, what do you not understand?

Would you agree that there was no first person to speak english?

No, I believe there was a first person to speak English. How else you suppose languages arrive naturally?
edit on 26-7-2016 by ssenerawa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ssenerawa

OK then, so do you believe a child was born who spoke a different language to their parents?



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: ssenerawa

OK then, so do you believe a child was born who spoke a different language to their parents?


No they learned them growing up. Still don't see your point



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join