Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: Which came first?

by ady (Deacon)
on May 06, 2008 at 19:52 UTC ( #685064=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: Which came first?
in thread Which came first?

Well, I was commenting on egg+spermatozoa (oogamy) being an evolutionary ancient mechanisms for sexual reproduction traceable back to the protista (way before multicellular organisms, such as T.Rex or chickens).

This is a broad evolutionary angle on the egg/chicken question (which I find interesting),

All sexually reproducing organisms derive from a common ancestor which was a single celled eukaryotic species. Many protists reproduce sexually. . .

If the egg is not necessarily of any specific type: Then it could be said that the egg came first, because other animals had been laying eggs long before chickens existed. In biology, egg is used as a general term in this way.

A more narrow speciation angle (which seems to be what you are driving at) could argue that

The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl... Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the egg came before the chicken.

allan
(in the beginning was energy, evolving (given time and negative entropy) to egg, chicken -- and in the end : a lot of words... :)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Which came first?
by shmem (Chancellor) on May 06, 2008 at 23:15 UTC
    A more narrow speciation angle (which seems to be what you are driving at)

    No, what I was driving at is the timelessness of being and wording (related to what jdporter wrote)

    (in the beginning was energy, evolving (given time and negative entropy) to egg, chicken -- and in the end : a lot of words... :)

    I personally believe wonder why there isn't any serious research investigating the linkage between love (which is the highest (and source of all) energy, as we all know) and energy as physicians understand it...

    --shmem

    _($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo.  G°\        /
                                  /\_¯/(q    /
    ----------------------------  \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."·
    ");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}
      OK, this is another line of research (than biology).

      There is an increasing amount of investigation these years into the nature of consciousness (including emotions), but THAT egg seems hard to break on a purely physiological or even higher functional level. Maybe consciousness is a Gödel kind of self referential proposition hard to crack inside the axoiom system of current biology...

      There's also a growing understanding - at least among people working with serious introspection such as yoga or zen meditation - that consciousness is deepely integrated in the senses, body, - even matter/time in a broader sense.

      Allan

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://685064]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others romping around the Monastery: (8)
As of 2020-09-25 21:10 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    If at first I don’t succeed, I …










    Results (141 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?