Who says it had to be slightly mutated. It is entirely possible the thing that laid the egg was nothing like a chicken. May have been a dinosaur in fact. Nature is much like Tom Edison, she keeps trying different things until something works. Only she will try 100 billion times instead of thousands. Gross changes sometimes seem to work better than minor ones.

The most interesting thing to me is that the evidence seems to support that there are fewer life forms than there was in the distant past. If 1/2 the species on earth die out every 1000 years or so think of how many there must have been 10,000,000 years ago.

--

Anders Hultman wrote:

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Bob W wrote:


If you accept the evolution theory, the answer would actually be that the
egg came first. It was laid by an animal that was nearly, but not quite, a
hen.

I don't think you can appeal to evolution here. Evolution tells us that chickenhood is not a fixed state, not a destination or a Platonic ideal, but part of a seamless continuum, identified retrospectively.


But following that continuum, you will eventually reach a point where the
animal before you is so unlike modern dat chickens that you can't really
call it a chicken, right? But rather a "pre-chicken" or some such. And
that animal lay The Egg. A slightly mutated egg that the first chicken
hatched from.


Chickenhood is a realm of infinite possibilities, never-ending
branches exploring the boundaries of identity, pecking at the
futility of definitions plucked from our cooped minds.


anders
-------------------------
http://anders.hultman.nu/
med dagens bild och allt!



-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html




Reply via email to