Monday, April 6, 2015

#82 The Chicken Or The Egg

You have probably heard the question before about, “What came first, the chicken or the egg?” Everybody knows that chickens come from eggs, but we also know that you don’t get eggs unless you have chickens first.

So we have a puzzle that goes around and around trying to figure out the origin of life question. In fact Wikipedia says the chicken versus the egg question goes way back in history to ancient philosophers, even including the writings of Aristotle 350 years before Christ.

Evolutionists would probably follow Wikipedia in saying that the egg came first because mutations would occur in the reproductive process of some other species and the resulting egg when hatched became a modern day chicken.

That’s not very satisfactory to me since I see quite a few more chicken or the egg issues that are hiding inside consecutive layers inside of other layers of the chicken and the egg question.

If you have read my Proof for God #27 on Mutation [1], then you know that decades of scientific research on mutation has never been shown to produce any viable new species. That’s just one challenge.

Think about another fact. No chicken hatches from an egg if the egg is not fertilized by a rooster. So there is another important half of the egg to consider, the male input. Scientists now know that the fertilization takes place way inside the hen and that the egg forms from a protein that is not found in any other animal.

Suppose the impossible could happen and there is actually a mutation of the pre-chicken species that evolutionists claim led up to the chicken. Did the mutation take place before, during, or after fertilization by a necessary type of male component?

Let’s designate the female parent’s sex chromosomes as the standard XX and the male parent’s sex chromosomes as XY. Then the egg will have one X chromosome. The male parent contributes either an X or a Y. If there is a mutation in the X chromosome, call it X, what you are going to get in the next generation is either XX or XY, neither of which is really a chicken. The odds in random mutations are that it won’t survive to reproduce, but if it did, the odds are only 50-50 that the X would be passed to the next generation.

Can you recognize that there also has to be a “chicken-mutation”, if you will, from the rooster side. That’s also impossible by our definition. (See Proof #81 Definition of Impossible [2]) Even if it occurred somewhere on the earth, you’d still have to get a successful mating of the two individuals with mutated chromosomes.

Even if you somehow got a mutation that lead to XX which could be a hen (female chicken), you are still a long, long way from an XY chromosome set in order to get a rooster (the male chicken).  Until you have a female and a male, there will never be a new species.

The odds of any one such mutation occurring are already impossible (again see [2]), but it is even more impossible that both mutations occur within the same generation and those two individuals mate with each other.

As I think about it, almost every aspect of an animal’s body poses more chicken or the egg problems. Here are some examples:

Which came first, the heart or the arteries and veins to circulate the blood it is pumping?

Which came first, the heart or the lungs to oxygenate the blood that the heart pumps?

Which came first, the muscles throughout the body or the nerves connecting them to the brain to make the muscles work at all?

Which came first, the eyeball or the optic nerve connecting the signals to the brain for interpretation?

Which came first on birds, the wings or the feathers?

What came first, the stomach or the mouth it is attached to?

What came first, the left leg or the right leg?

Which eye came first, the right eye or the left eye?

What came first, the arm or the hand on the end?

Which came first, the male or the female? What about the sperm and the egg? They both had to emerge simultaneously it seems to me. One or the other all alone doesn’t make any sense.

The Theory of Evolution is all about slow, gradual, and incremental changes over many generations. So I think it is a very fair question to ask, “Which came first”?

If you allow for an intelligent designer, as I do, then there is no problem with what came first. Think about designing a car. What came first, the wheels or the axles? What came first, the axles or the drive shaft? What came first, the drive shaft or the steering wheel? You could ask hundreds of questions like that and in the mind of the designer there would be answers to what the thought process was. But all the designing was done in the mind. It was all invisible before any prototype was ever created.

Without the invisible design being created first, nothing ever happens in the material world. The material world is the world of effect, not the world of cause.

Once something has been brought into existence in the material world, then further modifications can be made on it.

This, in fact, pretty accurately describes the fossil record. (See my Proof #58 The Cambrian Explosion [3] and Proof #64 Missing Links [4] for more elaboration.) Most species that appear in the fossil record will appear suddenly and they will be fully formed when they do.

The Theory of Evolution cannot adequately explain the fossil record, cannot show scientific examples of any species mutating into another species, and cannot explain where the very first life came from to name just three of its major flaws.

We are all very familiar with the process of creating something. It first starts in the mind where it is invisible. The artist does not put blob after blob of paint on the canvas randomly and end up with a recognizable image of anything. The artist starts with an invisible image in his/her mind as the goal or end product. Then energy, information, and forces are added to bring it into existence.

That’s how the world works. That’s how the world was created.

There must be God.

[1] Stephens, Jim, Proof for God #27, The Truth about Mutation,

[2] Stephens, Jim, Proof for God #81, The Definition of Impossible,

[3] Stephens, Jim, Proof for God #58, The Cambrian Explosion,

[4] Stephens, Jim, Proof for God #64, Missing Links,

1 comment:

  1. Hi, my name is Brian. I happened upon your blog and it intrigued me (especially the most recent post). I'm in the beginning stages of writing a novel about God and I like reading blogs like yours because it gives me perspective and it's always good to see/read viewpoints of others. I appreciate your blog and I will continue to visit it. Thank you for being a voice in the void.

    PS - if you'd like, I'd appreciate a visit to my blog too.