|
posted by dsk on March 18th, 2008 at 12:08PM
If you take a chicken and compare every one of it ancestors, you wouldn't be able to point to anyone of them as being sufficiently different from the previous one so as to call one something and call another something different.
|
posted by dennisn on March 18th, 2008 at 1:16PM
The point is, though, that the difference exists (whether it's "sufficient" or not is immaterial in this context). The egg came first. I think the whole "issue" between the chicken v. egg is the "issue" between evolution and creation theory. Ugh.
|
posted by dsk on March 18th, 2008 at 2:28PM
>The point is, though, that the difference exists (whether it's "sufficient" or not is immaterial in this context).
By your argument, I could claim that chickens in fact, do not exist. What we now know as chickens are actually unnamed flightless descendants of chickens of yesteryear.
>I think the whole "issue" between the chicken v. egg is the "issue" between evolution and creation theory.
Close. The question itself is framed for creationism. It is a caricature of evolution. There is no clear boundary in a lineage that you can point to and say "Ah ha - this is where chickens began".
|
posted by rick on March 18th, 2008 at 7:42PM
So ... how do you explain what a chicken is? Or do you refute the existence of chickens?
| |
-- by dsk on March 19th, 2008 at 1:31AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|