THE SPECIES PARADOX

[Eodnhoj7]

Rubbish.
Eggs come first.
Just because you reject evolution does not make you right. It just makes you ignorant.

Actually evolution is just diversity....that is it. There is nothing special about it.

And dont get off topic, neither the egg nor the chicken can come first.


The egg needs nurtured in order to hatch.
The chicken cannot reproduce if it came first.

A Female hen with a Male egg in it simultaneously.

Paradoxes are in your mind, not in nature. Eggs existed before chickens. Get over it.

If paradoxes are in the mind, then there is no isomorphism in nature?

So where is your empirical evidence the eggs came first?


ROFL wait...the evidence is: "It is because I said so and I am old and dont care." Is that it? I bet it is.

[Sculptor]

Actually evolution is just diversity....that is it. There is nothing special about it.

And dont get off topic, neither the egg nor the chicken can come first.


The egg needs nurtured in order to hatch.
The chicken cannot reproduce if it came first.

A Female hen with a Male egg in it simultaneously.

Paradoxes are in your mind, not in nature. Eggs existed before chickens. Get over it.

If paradoxes are in the mind, then there is no isomorphism in nature?

So where is your empirical evidence the eggs came first?


ROFL wait...the evidence is: "It is because I said so and I am old and dont care." Is that it? I bet it is.

Dinosaurs laid eggs and birds evolved from them

[Eodnhoj7]

Paradoxes are in your mind, not in nature. Eggs existed before chickens. Get over it.

If paradoxes are in the mind, then there is no isomorphism in nature?

So where is your empirical evidence the eggs came first?


ROFL wait...the evidence is: "It is because I said so and I am old and dont care." Is that it? I bet it is.

Dinosaurs laid eggs and birds evolved from them

Dinosaurs are Raptors, birds are Raptors, dinosaurs are overly large birds. They have actually found evidence many where cover in feathers.

But there where other birds during the same time period. Archeaopteryx from the cretaceous, late Jurassic period was one bird.

You are stuck splitting hairs as both dinosaurs and birds are under "raptors".

So you are left with birds co evolving with dinosaurs and both existing under the classification of raptor.

Your argument is grounded in measurement problems.

[Sculptor]

Dinosaurs laid eggs and birds evolved from them

Dinosaurs are Raptors, birds are Raptors, dinosaurs are overly large birds. They have actually found evidence many where cover in feathers.

But there where other birds during the same time period. Archeaopteryx from the cretaceous, late Jurassic period was one bird.

You are stuck splitting hairs as both dinosaurs and birds are under "raptors".

So you are left with birds co evolving with dinosaurs and both existing under the classification of raptor.

Your argument is grounded in measurement problems.

I knew all this before you were born.
None of it is relevant.
Not all birds are raptors, by the way, and neither were all dinosaurs.
But if you accept evolution as you seem to, then you have to agree that eggs preceded chickens.
Case closed.

[Eodnhoj7]

Dinosaurs laid eggs and birds evolved from them

Dinosaurs are Raptors, birds are Raptors, dinosaurs are overly large birds. They have actually found evidence many where cover in feathers.

But there where other birds during the same time period. Archeaopteryx from the cretaceous, late Jurassic period was one bird.

You are stuck splitting hairs as both dinosaurs and birds are under "raptors".

So you are left with birds co evolving with dinosaurs and both existing under the classification of raptor.

Your argument is grounded in measurement problems.

I knew all this before you were born.
None of it is relevant.
Not all birds are raptors, by the way, and neither were all dinosaurs.
But if you accept evolution as you seem to, then you have to agree that eggs preceded chickens.
Case closed.

Still a raptor strain and a problem of classification.

False, because you are left going back to cellular organisms replicating and neither the chicken nor egg occur....assuming you are going from a timeline approach.

Then you are left with saying did then one cell organism evolve into an egg or a chicken...under this model to evolve into an egg is sliding backwards to evolve into an aquatic creature that can't reduced does not work either.


You are left with hermaphroditic aquatic organisms that contain the egg.

So, from your perspective we are left with the "unevolved chicken" containing eggs.

[Sculptor]

Dinosaurs are Raptors, birds are Raptors, dinosaurs are overly large birds. They have actually found evidence many where cover in feathers.

But there where other birds during the same time period. Archeaopteryx from the cretaceous, late Jurassic period was one bird.

You are stuck splitting hairs as both dinosaurs and birds are under "raptors".

So you are left with birds co evolving with dinosaurs and both existing under the classification of raptor.

Your argument is grounded in measurement problems.

I knew all this before you were born.
None of it is relevant.
Not all birds are raptors, by the way, and neither were all dinosaurs.
But if you accept evolution as you seem to, then you have to agree that eggs preceded chickens.
Case closed.

Still a raptor strain and a problem of classification.

False, because you are left going back to cellular organisms replicating and neither the chicken nor egg occur....assuming you are going from a timeline approach.

Then you are left with saying did then one cell organism evolve into an egg or a chicken...under this model to evolve into an egg is sliding backwards to evolve into an aquatic creature that can't reduced does not work either.


You are left with hermaphroditic aquatic organisms that contain the egg.

So, from your perspective we are left with the "unevolved chicken" containing eggs.

I think you have a basic problem with simple cognition.
This is evident from this thread and the one on words as fulcrums.
Have you ever been assessed for learning difficulties?

[Eodnhoj7]

I knew all this before you were born.
None of it is relevant.
Not all birds are raptors, by the way, and neither were all dinosaurs.
But if you accept evolution as you seem to, then you have to agree that eggs preceded chickens.
Case closed.

Still a raptor strain and a problem of classification.

False, because you are left going back to cellular organisms replicating and neither the chicken nor egg occur....assuming you are going from a timeline approach.

Then you are left with saying did then one cell organism evolve into an egg or a chicken...under this model to evolve into an egg is sliding backwards to evolve into an aquatic creature that can't reduced does not work either.


You are left with hermaphroditic aquatic organisms that contain the egg.

So, from your perspective we are left with the "unevolved chicken" containing eggs.

I think you have a basic problem with simple cognition.
This is evident from this thread and the one on words as fulcrums.
Have you ever been assessed for learning difficulties?

I think you got schooled.

If you are going the evolution routed then we are left with a hermaproditic creature with eggs inside of it. This creature will eventually evolve into the chicken and as such is an unevolved chicken as it carries the same strain of genetic material which connects them.

It is like saying people evolved from apes, therefore they are a variation of apes.


As to the fulcrum thread, meaning is value. The order of the words is a value placement by the observer.


It is like walking up to a girl and saying:

"You look nice with that ribbon in your hair"
Vs.
"That ribbon looks nice in your hair".

The first one says she looks better dressed up.
The second one says she is always pretty and make whatever she wears look nice.


Big f""king difference. Thus each tautology is a variation of the original context, with the original starting point determining what is the core value placement within the sentence.

[Sculptor]

Still a raptor strain and a problem of classification.

False, because you are left going back to cellular organisms replicating and neither the chicken nor egg occur....assuming you are going from a timeline approach.

Then you are left with saying did then one cell organism evolve into an egg or a chicken...under this model to evolve into an egg is sliding backwards to evolve into an aquatic creature that can't reduced does not work either.


You are left with hermaphroditic aquatic organisms that contain the egg.

So, from your perspective we are left with the "unevolved chicken" containing eggs.

I think you have a basic problem with simple cognition.
This is evident from this thread and the one on words as fulcrums.
Have you ever been assessed for learning difficulties?

I think you got schooled.

If you are going the evolution routed then we are left with a hermaproditic creature with eggs inside of it. This creature will eventually evolve into the chicken and as such is an unevolved chicken as it carries the same strain of genetic material which connects them.

Yes. Eggs before chickes, obviously

It is like saying people evolved from apes, therefore they are a variation of apes.

We are apes, yes.

As to the fulcrum thread, meaning is value. The order of the words is a value placement by the observer.

Not relevant

It is like walking up to a girl and saying:

"You look nice with that ribbon in your hair"
Vs.
"That ribbon looks nice in your hair".

In your mind maybe.

The first one says she looks better dressed up.
The second one says she is always pretty and make whatever she wears look nice.


Big f""king difference. Thus each tautology is a variation of the original context, with the original starting point determining what is the core value placement within the sentence.

sadly you have stated that ALL words are fulcrums. Nothing you say here advances that claim.

[Eodnhoj7]

I think you have a basic problem with simple cognition.
This is evident from this thread and the one on words as fulcrums.
Have you ever been assessed for learning difficulties?

I think you got schooled.

If you are going the evolution routed then we are left with a hermaproditic creature with eggs inside of it. This creature will eventually evolve into the chicken and as such is an unevolved chicken as it carries the same strain of genetic material which connects them.

Yes. Eggs before chickes, obviously

See fulcrum response below.

It is like saying people evolved from apes, therefore they are a variation of apes.

We are apes, yes.

As to the fulcrum thread, meaning is value. The order of the words is a value placement by the observer.

Not relevant

It is like walking up to a girl and saying:

"You look nice with that ribbon in your hair"
Vs.
"That ribbon looks nice in your hair".

In your mind maybe.

Are you still with your wife?

The first one says she looks better dressed up.
The second one says she is always pretty and make whatever she wears look nice.


Big f""king difference. Thus each tautology is a variation of the original context, with the original starting point determining what is the core value placement within the sentence.

sadly you have stated that ALL words are fulcrums. Nothing you say here advances that claim.

It does when it comes to the species paradox as the question is one of defintion.
In defining which came first, the chicken or the egg, we are left with a regression of definitions as to what a chicken and egg is.

This regression leads us to the human/ape paradigm. If humans are apes, then chickens are aquatic hermaphrodites which carry eggs...thus by your own logic, where an identity is grounded in a variation of a prior premise (a tautology), we are left with the original premise defining the truth value of the statement.

For humans it is apes, where (human = variation of ape).

For chickens (and technically humans as well) it is aquatic hermaphrodite, where (chicken=variation of AH).

This is where your argument contradicts in form as the key meaning of each words is balanced according to the origin of the tautology which defines it. On one hand you have no problem accepting this tautology with humans, but with the chicken it is a different manner.

Even the chicken can dually be argued to hatch from a hermaphroditic egg, then lay a chicken egg, with even the egg itself (by definition) being subject to a tautology. Or the chicken can be viewed as a variation of an AH that evolved from a single cell organism into an AH thus having an egg in it simultaneously.

As the end it results in a regression to a single celled organism, as a beginning context, that evolves into an organism that contains it's own eggs.

Your logic failed precisely because of your admitted premise that humans are apes, thus chickens are AH.

It is a tautology where the value is relative to the direction of one context to another that effectively acts as a leverage point to how the argument is directed.


Your best bet is to say something equal to or synonymous with "the egg came first", "I am right because I said so", "your wrong/idiot/unschooled/bad education/etc.", "your off topic", etc. precisely because you do not have any other options. I mean you can, and should say you did not read the above, (even though you did) as a masked response. But if you do not respond you looked like you got schooled.

You really have no solid footing with any of the above, but you have to go through with one or more of the options anyhow.

I would recommend an insult, but if I do will you skip it and provide an "argument"?

[Sculptor]

blah

Please refer to the post I made above.

[Eodnhoj7]

blah

Please refer to the post I made above.

Divorcee?

[Spyrith]

THE SPECIES PARADOX
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ADOX.pdf

who did the first bird mate with
who did the first dog mate with
an individual of species A gives birth to a individual of the new
species B so who did this new individual of new species B mate
with to continue the new species either
1)there was no one to mate with
- so how did the new species B
become common
or
2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new
individuals of species B at the same time so that these new
individual members of species B could mate together
if this 2) was the way it happened we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of
species A give birth to a whole lot new members of
species B at the same time we are told species form
due to random mutations so it is beyound possibility that th
e same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the
same time the other alternative is that some intelligence was at work

I recommend you read the book Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. It descrbies how self-refferential systems can generate intelligent and sentient beings starting from the simplest molecules and basic biology.