Author Topic: Podcast #38 4/12/2006  (Read 7210 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bort

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 121
    • Nondiscovery blog
Podcast #38 4/12/2006
« on: May 27, 2006, 06:55:24 PM »
News Items: Bill Nye, Tom Cruise, Time Travel, Global Warming, Happy Face on Mars;
E-mails: Evolution, more on the flood, the psychosomatic effect
Science or Fiction
"Those that believe everything they read, should not read" - ?

Need to combat the discovery institute? http://nondiscovery.wordpress.com
Help with DNA analysis? http://www.bio-fyi.com

Offline bort

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 121
    • Nondiscovery blog
Podcast #38 4/12/2006
« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2006, 06:59:38 PM »
Looks like Rebecca was right.  The egg came first.  According to "Chicken and egg debate unscrambled" on CNN.com:

Quote
Now a team made up of a geneticist, philosopher and chicken farmer claim to have found an answer. It was the egg.

Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal's life.
"Those that believe everything they read, should not read" - ?

Need to combat the discovery institute? http://nondiscovery.wordpress.com
Help with DNA analysis? http://www.bio-fyi.com

Offline Paulhoff

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
Podcast #38 4/12/2006
« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2006, 08:33:03 AM »
I always thought that this was answered years ago, and it was just layman that didn’t get it, like believing that dinosaurs and caveman lived together at the some time.

Of course the egg came first, the parents where not as chicken as the egg, it is a thing called evolution.

Paul

 :D  :D  :D
color=blue]"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein
Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given. - mine
Never in the history of humankind, have so many, known so little, about so much.[/color]

Offline rebecca

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
    • http://www.skepchick.org
Podcast #38 4/12/2006
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2006, 04:14:35 PM »
Quote from: "bort"
Looks like Rebecca was right.  


And this is a surprise?

 :evil:
Skepchick <- Now with updated URL for 2012!

Offline Luna

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 830
Podcast #38 4/12/2006
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2006, 11:08:10 PM »
But the "egg" coming before the chicken happened over hundred thousands of years. I would think.  :P Slowly but surely we got our chickies.
Praise Jesus.

Offline Wonko the Sane

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Podcast #38 4/12/2006
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2006, 12:09:50 AM »
That is one of the semantic issues with evolution, by naming specific species we break them into false dichotomies when in reality it is hard to name a specific point where you could say "That is a chicken but it's parents aren't"
'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

"People in bamboo houses should not throw pandas" -Jesus

Offline Steven Novella

  • SGU Panel Member
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1825
    • http://www.theskepticsguide.org
Podcast #38 4/12/2006
« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2006, 07:02:53 AM »
Right - the question really has no answer because the concept of species is artificial. "Species" is just a useful place-holder, there isn't really any such thing. There is no way to definitively define where one species ends and another begins over evolutionary time. So there really was no first chicken.
Steven Novella
Host, The Skeptics Guide
snovella@theness.com

Offline Jay

  • SGU Panel Member
  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
Podcast #38 4/12/2006
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2006, 11:50:31 PM »
Steve, lets say we genetically defined what a modern day chicken is taking into account the variations that normally occur(color, size etc).  If we had the ability to line up all of the ancestors of the modern chicken then at some precise moment in time the very first chicken as we know them was born.  So at some point in history a modern chicken came into existence. This does not define when the so called chicken species started, but it is when the FIRST chicken came to be.  How much of a genetic variation exists between humans? At what point would we consider someone not human, when they couldn’t breed with a real human?
I don't believe it. Prove it to me and I still won't believe it. - Ford Prefect  "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

Offline Paulhoff

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
Podcast #38 4/12/2006
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2006, 12:02:59 AM »
Yea, yea, yea, now where’s the bacon.

Paul

 :D  :D  :D
color=blue]"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein
Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given. - mine
Never in the history of humankind, have so many, known so little, about so much.[/color]

Offline bort

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 121
    • Nondiscovery blog
Podcast #38 4/12/2006
« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2006, 09:57:40 PM »
Quote from: "Jay"
At what point would we consider someone not human, when they couldn’t breed with a real human?


I don't think there is any consensus on what is the true definition of a species.  The most common view is that it is this definition given by Ernst Mayr: "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups"  This is a somewhat unsatisfying rule due to the fact that not all species reproduce sexually.  Also, it doesn't really take into account species that are connected over evolutionary time but never existed at the same time.  These groups could potentially interbreed, but could never actually accomplish it (without a delorean).
"Those that believe everything they read, should not read" - ?

Need to combat the discovery institute? http://nondiscovery.wordpress.com
Help with DNA analysis? http://www.bio-fyi.com

Offline Wonko the Sane

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Podcast #38 4/12/2006
« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2006, 03:29:07 AM »
Quote from: "bort"
Quote from: "Jay"
At what point would we consider someone not human, when they couldn’t breed with a real human?


I don't think there is any consensus on what is the true definition of a species.  The most common view is that it is this definition given by Ernst Mayr: "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups"  This is a somewhat unsatisfying rule due to the fact that not all species reproduce sexually.  Also, it doesn't really take into account species that are connected over evolutionary time but never existed at the same time.  These groups could potentially interbreed, but could never actually accomplish it (without a delorean).


Good point, If you had sex with a homo-erectus (wow I was able to type that without even a giggle) you could probably produce an offspring. A really ugly offspring.
'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

"People in bamboo houses should not throw pandas" -Jesus

Offline cyborganics

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 289
    • http://www.cyborganics.org
Podcast #38 4/12/2006
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2006, 04:18:09 AM »
So hot.
cientist: A man who knows nothing until there is nothing left to understand.

www.cyborganics.org

 

personate-rain