CrimsonBlog Down

My blog over at CrimsonBlog hasn't been available for days. So, I'm assuming the host is permanently down. I was, however, able to recover some of the stuff there (not that it was worth salvaging, but...). Here it is.

What came first, the Chicken or the egg?

Problem:The solution to the age-old question, "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" depends on whether you are a creationist or an evolutionist. The answer, however, is still the same if you assume that the egg in question is a chicken egg. "The chicken came first." If the egg in question is NOT a chicken egg, then the egg came first because there were dinosaur eggs before there were chickens.

The crux of the problem hinges on the definition of a chicken egg. Is a chicken egg an egg that comes from a chicken or an egg that contains a chicken? Many people think of a chicken egg as a chicken eggshell that contains a chicken fetus. In other words, the chicken and the egg problem exist because people typically think of a chicken egg as a single entity (chicken eggshell and chicken fetus together). I will attempt to show that this configuration (chicken eggshell and chicken fetus together) is not necessary in order to create a chicken and that an egg should thus be classified by the species that laid it rather than by what species it contains.

I think that it is safe to say that the chicken fetus is the most obvious part of a chicken egg. The eggshell, however, is trickier because if the eggshell contains any genetic material, then one could argue that the eggshell is part of the fetus and thus the chicken egg could be classified as a single entity. Since the eggshell is made of calcium, we can safely say that the chicken egg consists of two distinct parts (the chicken eggshell and chicken fetus).

A problem still exists, however. Who generates the eggshell? If the fetus generates the eggshell then one could argue that the eggshell is part of the fetus and thus a fertilized chicken egg could be classified as a single entity. But there exists unfertilized eggs. This means that a fetus is not necessary in order to generate the eggshell. Maybe all that is necessary to generate the eggshell is the unfertilized genetic material provided by the hen. Since the complexity of generating an eggshell is beyond the capability of unfertilized genetic material, and since the unfertilized genetic material belongs to (and is generated by) the hen, it is safe to say that the hen generates the eggshell.

This reduces the eggshell to the status of a container. If the eggshell is nothing more than a container, then almost any container with egg like properties should be sufficient to incubate a chicken fetus. If an eggshell/container is capable of carrying almost any fetus of a different species to term, then we cannot classify the eggshell/container by its content. Rather, we should classify the eggshell/container by the species that created the eggshell/container. For example, if scientists were successful in hatching a chicken from a plastic container, would you then call the plastic container and the chicken fetus (together) a chicken egg? Or would you say that the plastic container held a chicken fetus? As another example, if scientists were able to extract the fertilized genetic material from a chicken egg and insert it into a duck egg, would the duck egg be reclassified as a chicken egg? Or would you maintain the "duck egg" classification and state that the duck egg in question contains a chicken fetus? My belief is that (in both examples) most people would choose the later (maintain the "plastic container/duck egg" classification and add the "chicken fetus" qualifier). In other words, an egg should be classified by the species that laid it rather than by what species it contains.

Once we agree on the definition of a chicken egg (an eggshell generated by a hen regardless of content), the solution is trivial.

Solution:

• Creationist: God said, "Let there be a hen." Otherwise, who would sit on the egg? Alternatively, God could have said, "Let there be a rooster." and then decided that the rooster needed companionship and so He created the hen and they then begot the egg. NOTE: Since God is perfect, it is unlikely that he said, "Let there be a chicken egg. Oh, and I almost forgot, let there be a hen to sit on that chicken egg. Ooh, wait, and a rooster!"
• Evolutionist: Some animal (not a chicken) laid an egg (not a chicken egg). The fetus inside the egg underwent some minor evolutionary change that resulted into a hen. This hen then laid the first chicken egg. Alternatively, the result was a rooster. The rooster then mated with some animal (not a chicken) that laid an egg (not a chicken egg, since the rooster's DNA could not have affected the egg). The result was (eventually) a hen who then laid the first chicken egg.
  

Chicken and the Egg, Alternate Solution

A chicken and an egg are lying in bed. The chicken is leaning against the headboard smoking a cigarette with a satisfied smile on its face. The egg, looking a bit ticked off, grabs the sheet, rolls over and says ... Well, I guess we finally answered "THAT question!"

If a tree falls and there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound?

Solution: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sound defines "sound" as, "Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing." Since sound only needs to be capable of being detected by human organs of hearing, and since a falling tree will transmit vibrations through a gas (specifically, air), with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, then the answer is, yes.

QED:

On the topic of LIFE

Life is a terminal disease. No one has survived it yet. There is not cure. If you are infected with life, you will die.

Here's a good argument against genetic engineering.

http://www.humandescent.com/index2.shtml

-j

Are you a Democrat, Republican or Southern Republican?

Here is a little test that will help you decide.

Question: How do you tell the difference between Democrats, Republicans And Southern Republicans?

The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock cal .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor! Or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Republican's Answer:

BANG!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Southern Republican's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.....(sounds of reloading).
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?"

On the Topic of Terrorist

Terrorism is a sign of the times but thankfully not so much so that we are not fazed by it. It is for this reason that if we were to witness a terrorist act that we may use an expletive such as, "Holy S***!!!" However, we must remember to maintain our composure at all times especially during such stressful situations. But, if you must express yourself verbally, we recommend the following, "Holy Shiite!!!"

However, recently I received a warning about the use of this politically incorrect term, so please note that we all need to be more sensitive in our choice of words when refering to our terrorist brothers.

I have been informed that the Islamic terrorists, who hate our guts and want to kill us, do not like to be called "Rag Heads", since the item they wear on their heads is not actually a rag, but in fact, a small folded sheet.

Therefore, from this point forward, please refer to them as "Little Sheet Heads."

For example, if you're rattled because you just witnessed a terrorist act, it is not OK to say, "Holy S***!!! Did you see that Rag Head blow himself up?" Instead say, "Holy Shiite!!! Did you see that Little Sheet Head blow himself up?"

Thank you for your support and compliance on this delicate matter.

July 18, 2001: Former US Senator warns of coming rock shortage in Palestine that would lead to a devastating halt to 30 years Palestinian rock throwers. Palestine has a 50% rock deficit in the urban areas and 20% deficit in the suburban areas for domestic consumption. Israel has stockpiled most of the rocks thrown at them by Palestians in an attempt to thwart their efforts. Palestinians are now calling on their arab brothers to support them in their cause by providing them with lots of throwing size rocks but a shipment from Syria was intercepted by the Israelites. "It's really a sad state of affairs," says a young Palestinian rock thrower, "The reporters no longer come around to video tape us."

Interesting:
The Palestinian people wanted change. So, they chose Hamas, the terrorist group, as their government.

This new Palestinian government harbors terrorist.

Now, if the world decides to define and recognize a Palestinian state, then the terrorist would have a country.

If you are a country that harbors terrorist, you're against U.S.!

If you're against U.S., and we know where you live, then you may experience change. Although, maybe not the type of change you wanted ;)

-j