Which came first dinosaur or the egg

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: whereislogic

Thanks for the reply, btw what's your opinion regarding the op I never saw it

a reply to: Barcs

Thanks for replying Also I didn't see yours, I'd like to know what you guys are debating

Barcs' opinion that for some reason he prefers to refer to as his "2 cents" can be found in the comment that has a story about "something very simple,". For some reason he thinks "it has probably been lost" in spite of all my repeated attempts at bringing it up or back into the conversation. Perhaps that again has something to do with wanting it to be so (an emotional state he talked about in one of his comments and I just quoted from him).

Quoting Barcs:

I dropped my 2 cents on the OP a while back, it has probably been lost amid the arguing.

I haven't given my opinion on the title of this thread cause I didn't notice a specification of what type of eggs you're asking about (fish lay eggs as well). You did bring up chickens, but chickens aren't dinosaurs so I didn't quite understand what your real question was. Quoting from the op:

Ok, doesent it take two chicken to make an egg?

Assuming you're talking about a chicken egg for the purpose of procreation, yes. Which makes what you said next a logical rational belief and conclusion based on reasoning on what the Encyclopædia Britannica refers to as "established facts":

Which is why I believe the chicken somehow had to come first.

For that reason I would agree after perhaps rephrasing it to "chickens". However I can think of one situation where you might get a fertilized chicken egg (with resulting healthy embryo) starting with just 1 chicken, but seeing that there are sharks in the water, it's probably best not to speculate about that for danger of being accused of doing too much speculation and opinion spouting. But perhaps you can think of it as well.

a reply to: whereislogic

Yes I agree, I was talking to barcs too he has a couple valid opinions but he's dodging my questions

originally posted by: ssenerawa
We were talking about the origin of biotic life, and how abiotic matter came to be biotic many millions of years after the Big Bang, not the origin of the universe, way to deflect.

What? You asked me for my opinion about the origin of information based on your definition and I answered. You never said it had to only be related to life. If you did, you would have used a different definition of the word information. Don't blame me for your mistake. If you meant the origin of genetic information, you should have just said that and we could have avoided all that wasted space.

And please don't say "well the origin of the universe was the origin of life" which would be true, but it holds no substance in regards to our conversation

Funny, I never have said that and wouldn't. This conversation has changed direction drastically from what I said in my posts, to what you are now trying to make it to be. I thought that you were arguing that life MUST come from intelligence. You (or whereislogic)can make that argument any day now (without fallacies and assumptions please).

youre perspective could be equivocated to saying the origin of this post is a keyboard. true in a sense but it wasn't until I arranged each letter specifically and into a particular sequence, that it could be regarded as information.

First, equivocation is using 2 different meanings of a word (or concept) as equal in context when they are not equal. What you just said is not equivocation. This is why I asked you to define "information". I don't like logical fallacies. Can you prove that DNA was ever intentionally arranged in a particular sequence? And don't tell me, "well it appears to be like that based on function". Show me hard evidence linking the nucleotide sequences and functionality observed in DNA to a designer that can be verified and tested via experiment. Where is that objective tangible link? I get that you believe this, and you are certainly welcome to that opinion, and it may even be true, but as of right now it's not yet scientific fact. More research needs to be done in order to make such a huge proclamation that DNA has a designer.

Yes I agree, I was talking to barcs too he has a couple valid opinions but he's dodging my questions

How can you say that I am dodging when you repeatedly ignore the bulk of my responses? I haven't dodged anything, I asked you to be specific in your question, which is why I asked you to define "information". Plus it was my opinion, science does not know the origin of information. What were you hoping to accomplish by asking me that?

originally posted by: whereislogic
I got tired of repeatedly having to point out your dishonest debate tactics.

What is dishonest about insisting that you use word meanings properly and be specific in your arguments?

The word function is not equal to purpose in the context you were using it. There is nothing dishonest about pointing that out. If you intend for purpose to mean the same as function, that is fine. But you can't then use it to logically argue that it proves the intentional arrangement of parts(a completely different meaning of purpose).

I'm not twisting anything, and I'm afraid I can't make it any more clear and direct than this. If you don't understand my argument, then it's time to move on.

But have fun in pretending I don't have an argument or trouble laying it out (or that I conceded or don't have an answer or reply when I'm not making comments, including trying to give that impression to others) just because you're good at twisting whatever I'm saying and projection while you demonstrate your promise of elaborating on "something very simple..." wasn't genuine at all, even if you would admit I fulfilled your requirements (as if I have to first, which of course you were always going to deny or try to debate before we get to discussing details about your comment containing the mysterious and vague "something very simple...").

I argued that the development of DNA over time was just as valid an opinion as yours that it was designed. This makes you angry, but I don't know why. I agree with RNA World hypothesis that early life relied on RNA and eventually developed into DNA around the time that multi-cellular organisms first appeared.

Since science hasn't found the answer yet, that is my opinion .... but there is evidence to back RNA World. Obviously it has not been proven yet, but the same holds true for intentional design.

Info on RNA World

And no, you never laid out your 2 point premise and conclusion about design, not once. You dodged that point like the plague, and yet here I am being courteous and explaining what I meant by life being simpler (less complex) than it is today. I wasn't saying it was actually simple, I was comparing it to how it is today.

a reply to: ssenerawa

Scientists have been attempting, and thus far succeeding, to reverse-engineer chickens back into their pre-evolution dinosaur form.

www.livescience.com...

Talk of a "chickenosaurus" lit up the science world last week when researchers announced they had modified the beak of a chicken embryo to resemble the snout of its dinosaur ancestors. But although some experts have lauded the feat, a beak is just one of many modifications needed to revert a chicken into a dinosaur.

Given these obstacles, how close are scientists to creating a dino-chicken?

"From a quantitative point of view, we're 50 percent there," said Jack Horner, a professor of paleontology at Montana State University and a curator of paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies. [See Images of the Chicken Embryos with Dinosaur-Like Snouts]

Horner has long supported the idea of modifying a chicken to look like a dinosaur, and unlike the researchers on the latest study, he actually wants to raise a live one. And why stop there? By understanding how and when to modify certain molecular mechanisms, countless changes could be within reach. As Horner pointed out, a glow-in-the-dark unicorn is not out of the question.

There are four major modifications needed to make a so-called chickenosaurus, Horner said. To turn a chicken into a dinosaurlike beast, scientists would have to give it teeth and a long tail, and revert its wings back into arms and hands.

The creature would also need a modified mouth — a feat accomplished by the researchers who did this latest study, he said.

"This dino-chicken project — we can liken it to the moon project," Horner told Live Science. "We know we can do it; it's just there are … some huge hurdles."

One of those "huge hurdles" was cleared in the latest study, published May 12 in the journal Evolution, in which researchers turned chicken beaks into dino snouts. But even that seemingly small step involved seven years of work. First, the researchers studied beak development in the embryos of chickens and emus, and snout development in the embryos of turtles, alligators and lizards.

It's likely that millions of years ago, birds and reptiles had similar developmental pathways that gave them snouts, but over time, molecular changes led to the development of beaks in birds, the researchers said.

I would highly advise reading this article that a simple Google search found. It will answer a lot of your questions.

a reply to: Kryties

Yes did some research, seems like if I'm reading correctly dinosaurs evolved, devolved or mutated into chicken and smaller bird species. And most still have the genetic information they originally had before the mutation, just that certain certain genes are for lack of better terms "switched off"

This applies to others like snakes, Dolphins etc..

Which to me seems there was an original DNA pattern for a small fraction of the variety of species we see today,

and that the different patterns mutated from its intricate primary sequence.

a reply to: Barcs

I'd be glad to answer your questions you've only been posting rebuttals

a reply to: ssenerawa
Yes, I've been posting rebuttals to your faulty claims, which have been ignored over and over again. I thought you wanted to have a conversation about life requiring intelligence, but apparently you just wanted to dictate your view as fact and ignore anything that conflicts. Yeah, good luck with that.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: ssenerawa
Yes, I've been posting rebuttals to your faulty claims, which have been ignored over and over again. I thought you wanted to have a conversation about life requiring intelligence, but apparently you just wanted to dictate your view as fact and ignore anything that conflicts. Yeah, good luck with that.

you didn't ask me any questions,

you were just telling me information ive already read, so I was telling you my perspective on it

a reply to: ssenerawa

I actually did ask a couple questions within my points. Based on your response (or lack thereof), it seems like you agree with my points about DNA not requiring a designer, so no need to go any further.

Nature is survival of the fittest and very unforgiving, giraffes didn’t evolve to have long necks so that they can eat from tall trees, They eat from tall trees because they have long necks