How is this possible?

[Cats Critters]

Quote:
An egg from Red Jungle Fowl.

 

[RAREROO]

Quote:
An egg from Red Jungle Fowl.

Then what did the Red Jungle Fowl hatch from ?

lol

 

[pringle]

Ok im very really sorry but Its just my stupid nature to put in my opinion about which came first the chicken or the egg.Ok so here it goes...Theoretically,the egg must come first.A chicken is concived and born in an egg;therefor,with out the egg the chicken would been either concieved or born,it may be that the egg was the product of two different species accidently mating to concieve the egg that contained the first 'chicken" as we know it.They egg came first think about it logically,instead of trying to question it.

 

[TimG]

What is a "chicken egg"? Is it an egg laid by a chicken or is it an egg out of which a chicken hatches?

 

[FireTigeris]

2 different species mating produces a sterile offspring 98% of the time... when anything is produced at all...

mules = donkey + horse (one ever confirmed fertile)
hinnies = horse + donkey (no clue, not fertile or almost never)
tiglon = tiger + lion (two? ever reported fertile, or the same female twice)
liger = lion + tiger (no clue, not fertile or almost never)
legars = lepard + tiger (not fertile or almost never)
curs = coyote or wolf to dog (fertile)
'wolf hybrids' = wolf + dog (fertile, same species, poor example)
'jungle cats' (not African sand cats) = bobcat + house cat (fertile sometimes/ low fertility)

darn forgot all the zebroids also sterile

 

[RAREROO]

Quote:
I'm pretty sure I've heard of a female hinnie or mule (not sure which way it was crossed), but she was able to concieve when bred back to a male horse.

 

[pringle]

Well what about that 2% then?The horse must have been developed by 2 different species and its here right?

 

[Freeholder]

You guys are forgetting that evolution is only a theory, and a poor one at that (scientifically, it truly doesn't even qualify as a theory, because it's not provable. A true theory has to be something that can be scientifically and experimentally proven.). It's just a bunch of surmising with little if any evidence to support it.

Kathleen

 

[TimG]

Quote:
No, it could have evolved from a single species.

 

[TimG]

Quote:
I think your understanding of scientific theory is wrong. From wikipedia's "Scientific Theory" entry:

In pedagogical contexts or in official pronouncements by official organizations of scientists a definition such as the following may be promulgated.

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, [7]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[8]

The primary advantage enjoyed by this definition is that it firmly marks things termed theories as being well supported by evidence. This would be a disadvantage in interpreting real discourse between scientists who often use the word theory to describe untested but intricate hypotheses in addition to repeatedly confirmed models. However, in an educational or mass media setting it is almost certain that everything of the form X theory is an extremely well supported and well tested theory. This causes the theory/non-theory distinction to much more closely follow the distinctions useful for consumers of science (e.g. should I believe something or not?)

The two footnotes are [7] National Acedemy of Sciences and [8] American Association for the Advancement of Science publications. The theory of gravity has not been proven, nor will it ever be proven, it will forever be a theory.​