You left out a crucial defining characteristic of language. Language communicates information from one mind to another. That is not what DNA does, therefore it is not a language.The fact that particular sequences of DNA produce particular results does not mean those sequences have "meaning" in the same way words have meaning. Claiming such is a fallacy of equivocation. It is akin to saying that atmospheric conditions have meaning because particular conditions produce particular results.
Was the egg relative to the layer or the " slightly more chicken-y bird"?It was the layer that produced the egg. So perhaps the egg wasn't actually "chicken-y" enough to be regarded as the first chickens egg.Therefore if the egg was non-"chicken-y", then obviously the chicken came first and then started laying true "chicken-y" eggs.
science is inexact in listing what constitutes a species. if the animal meets criteria like two wings a beak two legs etc, then it is a chicken. the problem is that this is an inexact science. it is sufficient for everyday use, sure. but a line has to be drawn. how do we draw it?the lithmus test to define chicken should be that any ancester chicken that can successfully breed with a current chicken, is a chicken.so which came first? the egg. if you go back in time we will find the first closest relative chicken that can mate succesfully with a modern chicken. that first ancester chicken came in the form of an egg. it is impossible to know which chicken came first as we can't for a practical matter mate all ancesters with all modern chickens, but in principle we know that there is an 'earliest chicken' and that it came in the form of an egg.
If we went back to that time, we would find there were no chickens at all for that "first" chicken to mate with..........D'oh!!
the first chicken would have been able to mate with just about every other chicken in that population.
...slowly take on the various traits that cause them collectively to become chickens.
....the first chicken would have been able to mate....There wasn't a 'first' chicken running around unable to mate...
Individuals change, and they change through individual genetic mutations, not "collectively".
After a few generations the flock will have transformed from being mostly red "RJFs" into being mostly white "chickens".
This post highlights my claim.Evolutionists soar when they speak only in generalities. Tie them down to specifics and they immediately start to doublespeak.You went to reproductive compatibility. Of course you did. The point was that a single individual with a genetic mutation would not be able to spread that mutation throughout the gene pool if all potential mates did not have that mutation.You dodged that point and filled your post with evo-fluff.
I gave a very similar explanation to ethang5 earlier in this thread, but it didn't take. It turns out he has a fundamental misunderstanding of Mendelian inheritance.
There's nothing wrong with speaking in generalities as you claim.
No one mutation would suddenly create a new species of chicken; rather, the culmination of these mutations over thousands of years would create a new animal.
However, the egg came first. The first generation of birds comprised mostly of 'modern' chickens had to come from somewhere...
...and that somewhere is an egg.
You would have known that He wouldn't take your glib generalities as logical arguments. But for you, a high-five from another evolutionist substitutes nicely for actual explanatory content.Had I actually read this thread in full instead of just skimming through it, not really paying attention to later developments in it, I wouldn't have wasted my time on ethang XD
...upon reading the exchange between you to, it's a lot more easier to figure out why ethang is wrong on this,....
Wait Darwin, tell us exactly how that one mutation propagated in the gene pool. The actual mechanism, not some sweeping generality pre-assuming evolution is correct, thus assuming its conclusion in its premise.
No, it's your basic lack of understanding that one parent with a mutation passes that mutation to half its offspring.Is it my grammar?
No sir. All you did was prance and preen about how much you knew science.I already explained this to you iin detail earlier in this thread.
...it's your basic lack of understanding that one parent with a mutation passes that mutation to half its offspring.Please stop being stupid. We were talking about a single individual with a recessive gene. You keep wanting to talk groups because your illogical theory cannot explain the propagation of a recessive gene in a gene pool by a single individual.
