i coudl tear your whole post apart like a puzzle, bt ill just take this one sentence and give you a fact:

The EGG came first, because there were already egs when the chicken didnt even exist. in fact, the egg is almost as old as life itself.
firt there were single cell creatures. as they grew to something bigger, called amphibic creatures,the egg came to be, a few billion years ago. thats a fact. you can either live by that fact or ignore all cotnradicting evidence (thats what religion usually does) and believe what you want....

Yup, true.

If chickens come from eggs, you'll need an egg first. Its really not that difficult.

Its easy to forget that mammals also grow inside something that resembles an egg, but this simply happens internally. There are exceptions, but a whole lot of life grows inside eggs (with or without hard shell) and as Spike said, it's easily one of the oldest evolutionary developments.

Thus, in an evolutionary sense, the (external) chicken egg really isn't that extraordinary.

Also, using evolution as a reference,

The animal that laid THE egg was 'almost' a chicken,
and the animal that hatched was 'only just' a chicken.

I you believe evolution, then that is pretty obvious.

from what i learned ... the egg, as a hard sheel is the normal thing...

the eggs inside some one, is not normal. it is caused by a virus that "melts" the shell, thus making the placenta...

but now i dont know if the normal is the egg or the placenta, and the virus solidify the placenta making an egg.. but i know it is caused by a virus..

Not a virus, a mutation.

Not necessarily Phemox.

Over the millenia, there have been multitudes of "naturally occuring" retro-viruses.
These viruses (virii?) can insert their own DNA (or fragments of) into the DNA of its host.
Then when the host re-produces, the child also contains the inserted DNA.
And over time, descendants of the host can become dependant on some or all of that inserted DNA,
and the virus embedded in its DNA may lose parts of itself that it needs to survive on its own.
So they become more of a "merged" entity, rather than host and virus as separate entities.

Thats the way I understand it anyway.

But its probably personal preference whether one would call this a 'mutation' or a 'virus'.
As it is a little bit of both...

That is correct and I am aware that a viruses tend to have a very high mutation rate and that it has certainly been one of many factors causing mutations in a host. But it remains to be seen whether each instance of said viruses would have caused the same effect. Most likely not, hence why I said it's still a mutation that caused the actual change.



Correct again, which only goes to show that some mutations aren't exactly as randomly caused as people assume. The virus itself is the result of mutations as well.


(Also, virii isn't a correct pluralization of virus as it would be the plural of a Latin non-word virius. Viri isn't right either, as that's actual the plural of the latin word for man (-> men). Its one of those words that never had a plural in Latin (its a mass noun), so lets just stick to the English 'viruses'. )

God exists. Enough said, no explanations needed.

Cool story bro

you are, and i dont care if i get banne, the most stupid, retarded, moronic and idiotic person i have ever had the un-pleasure to realize existing. in fact, i hope you die a horribly slow and painfull death bby some lunatic hitting you with a spoon for years so that you die and see just how wrong you are. if you would have the capacity to even think, you would know how wrong you are and if there would even be the sligthest chance of you ever achieving something in live, i would gladly salute you, however, this day will never come simply because you sir are the lowest human being that graces our fucked up planet.

and yes, i enjoy calling you names because you deserve it. now do the universe a favour and die-.-