Hi Dan,
> > Hi Arlo and John > > A couple weeks ago, this article ran in the NYT... not sure if anyone > else read it (Platt was always good about reading the Times) but it > seems related to this discussion: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/science/15evolve.html?ref=science > > Dan comments: > > Of particular interest is this snip: > > "Surprisingly, they’ve found that a lot of the genetic equipment for > building an animal was in place long before the animal kingdom even > existed." > > Dan comments: > > What the researchers seem to be saying is that the blueprints for > animals were in place long before animals. So one possible answer to > the old conundrum of what came first: chicken or egg, might be > answered now: the chicken came first! > > Thoughts? > > Dan > Or rather, the idea of chickeness (complete with egg-laying capability) came before either chickens or eggs. But it's hard to talk about the idea of chickeness, without anthropomorphising the only kind of "ideas" that we humans understand - those which are the result of human thought. But obviously, chickeness as an idea is something which came before human thought. But all in all, a fascinating article and one that I finds support my contention with Arlo, so thanks for that Dan. Slow John Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
