This Week's Quiz is...

I think everyone has already beat me to it. XD

Yeah, the egg came first. There's really no debate to be had.

We know that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. So, it's less about creationism vs evolution in so far as it's not a question of whether or not you believe in a higher power and believe that said higher power created all life, but rather do you choose to ignore overwhelming amounts of empirical evidence in favor of the idea that all life on Earth has existed and been present in its current form for the entirety of that 4.5 billion years (during the majority of which, most modern species did not exist).

Never mind the fact that chickens, as we know them today, are domesticated animals. And, as such, their current state is a result of selective breeding, by humans, in order to breed certain traits that are the most beneficial to human beings through the process of evolution. As such, the modern chicken was born from an egg that was laid by a creature that was genetically different. And if we follow that genetic line back far enough, you eventually get something that is very similar to a chicken, but is just different enough to not be labelled as such.

 

I think the chicken came first, since it lays the egg, but the chicken spawned from the egg.
Circular reasoning at its finest.
???
I have no real answer for this. I do not like the theory of evolution, due to lack of convincing evidence.

Could you give some evidence or explanations?
Something that does not make sense to me is the transition from one species to another.

Bats, for example. If I remember correctly, they started off as ratlike creatures, and evolved to what they are now. But over the course of millions of years, how did they manage to say alive as there front legs underwent the change? The changing structure, I assume, would have taken away from ground mobility while not quite being ready to takeoff either. Even if they originally had the ability to glide, it would still take some time to get to the point it could fly.

As for the missing links between primates and humans, why aren't there more of those? Presumably, there would have been changes taking place all over, and skeletons undergoing transition would have been found much easier. I doubt that evolution would occur with only a small group, relatively immobile group of creatures, and that this group would stay untouched by other creatures that could take part in the evolution.


EDIT
Removed philosophical irrelevancy.

 

I find this an odd statement. It seems to me that you would actively have to ignore evidence in order to believe that there is none. I mean, even if you just took one science class in school, you should have been presented with at least some evidence.

Gladly.

I thought my explanation of domestication (using chickens as the example) was sufficient, but I will try to explain in more detail.

First, we need to understand how we determine a creature's species. A species is defined as "the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species." In addition there are many, more specific, factors involving DNA and morphology.

Now, ignoring the fact that we have a great amount of fossil and DNA evidence, evolution is actually observable.

In an experiment started by a Soviet scientist in 1950, foxes were subjected to domestication, or forced evolution, in order to breed a new type of fox that was docile and friendly toward humans. Foxes were divided into three classes. Class number one being the most docile, class number three being the least. Only those that showed the least aggression toward humans were permitted to breed.

In only fourteen years "...the fourth generation was already beginning to live up to the researchers' hopes." They had begun to behave in a similar manner to dogs. The most tame of which even wagged their tails and became excited by the researchers' presence. After forty years "...and the breeding of 45,000 foxes, a group of animals had emerged that were as tame and as eager to please as a dog." These foxes had become friendly toward humans and underwent physiological changes that differentiated them from their ancestors as little as forty years prior.

The experiment, as of 2014 (the most recent update I could find), is still ongoing.

When subjected to domestication, forced evolution, or just natural selection/natural evolution, species undergo significant physiological and behavioral changes, over a period of time. These changes are caused by changes in the DNA of these animals. Eventually, their genetic discrepancy will become great enough that they become classified as a different species than their ancestors. And, given enough time and continued evolution, they will likely lose the ability to breed with their ancestral species, as well.

Evolution doesn't really work quite like that. There isn't, necessarily, a target physiology/behavioral personality that evolution just sets its sights for and immediately moves to reach that destination.

Evolution is, almost always, beneficial to the species undergoing it. Species evolve generation to generation or across multiple generations. But the transition to their present state is a result of evolving from one state to a more beneficial state, and then evolving to a state more beneficial than that, and so on. And, eventually, barring changes in climate, habitat, etc., most species, or new species, will settle into a state that is ideal for survival in their surroundings.

 

Oh! Oh! I wanna join in!
So, one of the most common misconceptions about evolution is that people think there is a pre-determined direction for it to happen. For example, "all apes should evolve into humans." As Baconman said, that isn't how it works. I'mma talk on the molecular level now.
So, you've got all this DNA, and occasionally, a mutation occurs, turning one letter in your ~3 billion-letter code into a different one. In most cases, the mutation is detrimental, and is selected against. However, in very rare cases where the mutation is beneficial, it might be selected for, and spread through a population via passing it on to the next generation.
Now, scaling this up. We have a whole bunch of one population with this beneficial trait, and they decide to separate from the rest of the population. Say, they have longer necks, so can reach higher fruit. Eventually, the two halves of the population become two separate populations and keep getting different beneficial mutations compared to eachother. After enough time, there will be too great a difference between their DNA for them to mate successfully. And this is what defines a species, the ability to produce viable fertile offspring.
Fast forward, these populations keep splitting and forming new species, and you end up with one big family tree~ Everything is related, but to different degrees; you're more related to your sibling (chimps) than you are to your cousin (cats) than you are to your third cousin once removed (turtles) (shit how does the cousin removed thing work? XD).

It's not so much "missing link", but more of a spectrum.
Oh! And one of the most major early differences between humans and great apes, is that we got different hips/legs. Our legs stand in between our shoulders, giving us more balance than if all our weight was on the side whenever we lifted a leg, like with apes with their legs outside of their shoulders. This gave us better walking ability, so we could travel further distances in search of more food.
And yep, not many things stay untouched. Species intermingle, like predator-prey, and those that survive pass on their traits to the next generation.

That's so neat~

 

It is. Except I think they killed the foxes not selected to breed. =P

 

@BaconMan8910
I see what you mean with your explanation about the chickens and the foxes. All I ended up seeing that as was just, as you mentioned, selective breeding, not evolution. I was thinking that evolution was simply natural selection determined by the most fit to survive, not (relatively) controlled like selective breeding. Just thought those two were different. If I realized that they were not considered different, I might not have pestered you about it.
I understand corn plants were originally quite pitiful compared to what we have now, and were built up to what it is now with the selective breeding (or something along those lines).
Just so you know, I do not wish to be a jerk who cannot get things through his head. I just find it interesting and wish to see what others have to say.

I was once on a kick about getting a pet fox, since some people managed to tame them (not domesticate). I read about the fox project before, and they tend to cost, roughly, $8,000(?). Even you you purchase one of those things, you still have to worry about importation (both to the USA and then the state), and that it might not be excepted.
There are fennec foxes, which are the most 'domesticated' wild fox one could get. They still cost a lot.

Pity. Such a waste of perfectly good poison.
Thought that the foxes could have been released. Guess Russian scientists care less for such things.

 

It's the same thing, really. Except in selective breeding it's forced natural selection.

But that's how natural selection works. It is necessitated by external influences. In the case of selective breeding, it is necessitated by human beings. If you want to breed, you need to change, to evolve. Because those that don't, don't breed and die. And the prime directive, as it were, of every species is survive and reproduce.

And I don't mean to come off as a jerk that acts like you can't get anything through your head. We all have the capacity to learn.

I'm know I'm kind of blunt and matter-of-fact in my manner of speaking. If I think you're wrong about something, I'm going to tell you that you're wrong. But I don't mean to belittle anyone, so if you feel like I am belittling you, let me know.

 

If belittlement were used to make bullets, I would be bulletproof. No need to worry about me.

 

Ok let me chime in on this whole chicken egg thing. Now I may be overthinking this abit but.....If the average chicken weighs in at 14.2 pounds, and the average egg weighs in at .34 ounces (shell removed of course for accuracy) and said egg is brown (to avoid being called a egg supremacist by Al Sharpton). laid by said 14.2 pound chicken; then the egg in question is indeed undoubtedly secondary in reference to said chicken. However if we go back to the birth of the poor pitiful poultry in question, then its inception from egg (or henceforth eggception) had to come secondary to another chicken and so on and so forth up until it was first created from the depths of the primordial ooze from which all life (you and I included) sprang. So I guess the egg in question is unspecified as is the chicken in your debate, and as such there can be no right answer until you tell us which egg exactly and which chicken exactly to which you are referring and how those two are immediately related. Or to put it another way.....What was I saying again?

 

So sorry to leave this hanging for a while. I was trying to find some Judges... The winner is...

Spoiler

Congratulations @BaconMan8910

I've been a bit slack this week. Have been very busy of late so I will hopefully find something interesting for next week's quiz to make up for this week's.

 

Week 4/5

I have two apologies​

Sorry that I have returned with lame quiz questions this week and sorry I have left this hanging for a while.... So feel free to pretend you're whacking mii in the head or something. My off line life been a bit busy and I think over the next 2 weeks it will continue to be busy...

Anyway... if possible, try to not rely on Google to answer these questions...

A) How many WHITE keys are there on a piano?
B) How many black keys are there on a piano?

C) What is the most spoken language in the world?

D) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Top being 1 and the bottom being 10. Pick the numbers on the grid to find that N.

E)

 

I could be wrong, but don't some pianos have more keys than others? My keyboard piano has:

A) 36
B) 25
C) Mandarin
D) 7,9
E) Team

 

A standard Piano has 88 keys, 52 of which are white and 36 are black. I'm guessing Spanish is the most spoken language, as it is also the most seductive....7 across and 9 down....and the first word I saw in the grid, is the word You.

 

Spoiler

X+Y=Z
Z = Total key count.

A. White keys = X
B. Black keys = Y
C. Klingon (if English is not the answer)
D. Row 9, Coulumn 7
E. Wealth

 

A) 88 keys...Most modern pianos has 52 white keys
B) Which leaves 36 black keys
C) Mandarin is the most spoken language to date
D) 7,9
E) Was just for fun... I saw 'You' first up.

Gee Core... haha! The formula... I suppose it is correct.

 

Senpai noticed me!
(Actually, it should be kohai, but that lacks the same effect).

That's me, the guy who chooses flexible answers.

 

Hey, everyone! I'll be filling in for @Kaede this week.

This week we have a few riddles to solve. As always, try to come up with the answer without using Google or another search engine.

1) Many have heard me, none have seen me. I will not speak until spoken to. What am I?

2) This old one runs forever, but never moves at all. It has not lungs nor throat, but still a mighty roaring call. What is it?

3) You're standing on the surface of the Earth. You walk one mile south, one mile west, and one mile north. You end up exactly where you started. Where are you?

Enjoy!

Bonus:

 

Spoiler

1. echo
2. river/waterfalls
3. one mile west

not sure with number 2.

 

Not much turnout, this week. Still, the answers are:

1) an echo

2) a waterfall

3) the North Pole.

Bonus: about 24 MPH

 

Week 7
Thank you for filling in for mii @BaconMan8910.

Topic: Rebus Puzzles

Spoiler: Answers

1) Too funny for words
2) Small talk
3) Get up and go
4) Wrong end of the stick
5)High Jacking

If you understand 5... you are doing better than mii and I have made 5 worth 2 bonus points.

Enjoy! XD