This week's book giveaway is in the General Computing forum. We're giving away four copies of Arduino in Action and have Martin Evans, Joshua Noble, and Jordan Hochenbaum on-line! See this thread for details.
Dinosaur eggs! Obviously the egg was first, birds evolved out of dinosaurs.
I just saw some fossilized dino eggs myself. I've been on vacation to the USA, and in northern Arizona we stopped along the road to see dinosaur tracks and eggs:
Tracks, fossilized in the rock - the guide is spraying them with water so that you can see them more clearly.
chetan dhumane wrote:No one got my question.
Who came first egg or hen.
Just give the answer with justification.
You didn't get the answers given by Bear and me above. The egg came first, because eggs existed already when birds (including hens) didn't yet exist - at the time of the dinosaurs.
Your question is pointless. This question eventually points to evolution. And thus it takes us to various theories of evolution.
www.cs-repository.info
John Eipe
Ranch Hand
Joined: May 23, 2008
Posts: 205
posted
0
Thinking about evolution, We used to have debates in school regarding evolution/creation.
Living organisms evolved from basic organic molecules but still it hasn't been found which molecule came first and hence no clue about which nucleic acid came first....
Wikipedia:
In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication, and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories.
Soumyajit Hazra wrote:They are telling the problem has been solved . Have a lookChicken Or Egg
But that article is only talking about chicken eggs. Whatever they have shown, they haven't shown it for lizard eggs or ostrich eggs or platypus eggs. And of course since it's the BBC doing the report, and it's about science, they totally get it wrong.
Paul Clapham wrote:And of course since it's the BBC doing the report, and it's about science, they totally get it wrong.
Where did you get the BBC from ? As far as I can see it's MSNBC quoting an article from the daily Mail.
Beats me. Sorry for the confusion. It's the Daily Mail taking a potentially interesting bit of science and applying it to a nonsensical and meaningless bit of trivia.
John Eipe
Ranch Hand
Joined: May 23, 2008
Posts: 205
posted
0
It's the Daily Mail taking a potentially interesting bit of science and applying it to a nonsensical and meaningless bit of trivia.
0
