Conclusions Page 8 of 10

And lastly , this chicken egg , that might also exist on other planets , wouldn’t have turned into a chicken as it is unfertilized. The female chicken that laid the egg had not met a male chicken. But if it had been fertilized it could have within in a few weeks been a new chicken fancying another chicken. That physical yellow yoke and white albumen contains the ability for it to turn into a an all flapping , pecking chicken. Or in the least , it is there to allow or aid the formation of another chicken. The wording is tricky as we don’t actually know if the ingredients in any egg on their own are enough to bring about life.

If a male chicken had of fertilized the egg with sperm that had an X chromosome , the baby chicken would have been female , and if the sperm had a Y chromosome the chicken would have been male. But chromosomes and DNA and genes don’t seem to really help us really understand how a new chicken comes about. The chromosomes and DNA and genes etc seem in a way like just giving instructions to have the chicken be male or female and to have a certain shade of beak colour and all sorts of other differences , but they don’t seem to really help with explaining the eggs ability to be a chicken.
Just on chromosomes and DNA and genes though , we’d have to wonder about their abilities when wondering about evolution theory. Like the phenomena of the specificity of there being the phenomena of males and females in the first place , there is the sperm chromosome that is either an X or Y that brings about either a female or male.
It’s hard to think that random mutations and natural selection comes up with such specificity. Basically , why are those words and what they convey used at all. We put the word ‘chromosome’ to what is a physical thing , but once we use words to describe something we are sort of content with our descriptive account of only its existence and can loose sight of the fact that the physical chromosome leads to deciding that the chicken in the egg becomes a male or a female by using an X or a Y. We surely couldn’t say that a chromosome evolved the X and Y on itself to make a baby be either a male or female. No idea. And don’t trust me. Just having a think.
Now though , we would not only just have to imagine the evolution of any whole animal after they somehow exist in the first place , we’d also have to wonder how an X or Y in or on a chromosome also evolved to make a chicken be a male or a female. Just seems that since that is very real , evolution is not at play in either.

Back on the egg though. It would follow with thoughts , that the yellow yoke and white albumen has to be stored exactly in a shell composed of whatever shells are made of that has the right strength and structure that isn’t crushed by gravity. And that can’t be an easy feat to get so right. We wouldn’t say though that evolution was involved with the egg shell because the soft egg inside needs the shell to be exact from day one. That means that the egg shell is somehow just there to contain the actual egg that turns into a chicken. So why do we say that animals have evolved when an egg shell , at least in my thinking , clearly didn’t , and neither did the X and Y on a chromosome that makes a male or a female. If though just those two specifites did in someway evolve , it would mean that billions of other specifities that make a chicken like blood and eyes would all have had to have all evolved at the same time as each other.

A female chicken can make and lay a whole egg in 24 hours. What is difficult to work out is whether the egg contains all of the ingredients to make a baby chicken , if it has not been fertilized. Does the male chicken say have anything to do with the legs that the baby chicken will have or is it all in the female chicken egg and the male adds it’s differences. No idea.
But if all of the eggs could turn into a chicken without being fertilized , we’d be in nightmare territory. Somehow it just can’t happen. That is in some way why the evolution idea fails , otherwise all of the eggs in our pantry could hatch and would be copies of their mother. It just feels that our evolution theory doesn’t have a say in anything.

So in terms of evolution , why would the chicken egg be reliant on our ideas of accidental random mutations and natural selection when what is inside of it can turn into a chicken with a heart and lungs and legs etc in the first place.
Just the thought that a male chicken exists and a female chicken exists to make another chicken should make our comprehension of it wonder how we think about it. In other words , how would our idea of accidental random mutations and natural selection be involved with the bringing about the duality of a male and female chicken that fancy each other and get together to make an egg that can make a baby chicken. That requires a bit of something else , surely.

Also the eggs existence and what it could have done next surely can’t be explained using evolution because the actual phenomena of the chicken fancying another chicken cannot have been naturally selected. The new chicken has to fancy another chicken. It can’t fancy another animal , so that fancying only another chicken cannot occur through any sort of random mutations or natural selection.

If we use the word instinct to explain that fancying, then we invoke something that is not physical. It would then be a bit of a stretch to say that the ability or function of any instinct like fancying evolved.
If we say that that instinct is different to the physicality’s of the animal and doesn’t rely on evolution then it could be considered as if it has always happened in an instance and never had to evolve and would have to exist from day one , or day two of the first ever chicken. That would be be the same for every animal that ever existed.
It’s again another word that feels only a little bit satisfactory to explain how a chicken fancies another chicken. But it is obvious that our instinct idea is just an idea. That would mean that although we say that a chicken has an instinct to fancy another chicken , it’s only a word that we have come up with to say that a chicken fancies another chicken. And in the realities of realities , all we know is that a chicken fancies another chicken only. We don’t know anything else. The words instinct and evolution and random mutations and natural selection feel useful to use , but are useful at the moment only as tools to compare the thoughts about it that we have.

And so surely the egg would more likely use whatever is used to do the later fancying thing for it to turn it into a chicken and maybe in the future turn into another species.
That is if it will turn into anything else at all. Chances are it might always be a chicken until it goes extinct.
Having said all this, again , no wonder someone once thought ” which came first , the chicken or the egg “. No way round that one.

But could these abilities like the chicken fancying and seeing and hearing exist before the chicken existed , as after all , seeing and hearing and fancying had existed before chickens existed. All conjecture of course , and we could say that the chicken evolved from some other animal from the past that had sight and hearing. But we could also just as easily conjecture that the phenomena of the chicken , whatever the chicken is , jumps into an available fertilized egg from outside in some way and then that we also jump into the available fertilized human egg in the womb available to be us. All conjecture , just like the theory of evolution.

But an egg needs fertilization , so it can’t be that the necessity of fertilization uses our evolution ideas. Just seems that evolution ideas get messed up with that kind of reality. Firstly there is the concept of fertilization that once didn’t happen and then it did. We can’t at all get to have any thinking on that , but clearly , fertilization and the body parts that do it , are succinct.
The only reason as to why we think that evolution has anything to do with any of the above is because there is the past , but it doesn’t mean that if say there were no lungs in a body today that they couldn’t occur tomorrow. That would apply to the thinking that the nails on toes and the nails on fingers required time to be.
It’s not that time is an issue with the nails. It would be more about how come that they are on the end of the toes and fingers. The toes and fingers are a long way from each other and yet they both somehow have nails. Would a progression like evolution bring that about..

There has to be some thought put to the idea that evolution ideas are wrong , even if evolution theory is right , because there is no evidence to show that say that the five wiggly fingers with nails on each of our hands and the five wiggly toes with nails on each of our feet , rely on evolution to exist. We all have in our thoughts that something called evolution is using genes and DNA in the existence of those fingers and toes and the whole of all living things. They are in all animals but we have nothing to go on to say that they are responsible for bringing about the animal.

If our wiggly fingers and toes came from a monkey or apes hand or foot , or whatever animal existed before the monkey or apes , we’d still have to explain the first wiggly fingers and toes.
Hands with fingers and feet with toes seem universal on earth. The feet walk the earth and they do it more than pretty well. That’s just one or two features.
It seems that any one phenomena needs nothing like our imaginary conjectures that we have come up with for them to come about and then progress. They would surely use whatever they used to exist in the first place. Phenomena like wiggly fingers just wouldn’t rely on our evolution ideas. Walking and talking and thinking and memory and birds finding worms to feed their babies and teeth that are solidly fixed in gums also couldn’t be said to have evolved , or in the least have started by evolution.

It would also have to be explained how all body parts are evolving at the same time or at different times as each other and how the parts came about to develop their functions and how they would seem to know what functions are needed to exist in the earths atmosphere and the earths gravity , and then how they pass fluids between each body organ. It would go on and on of course. But there are not millions of scientists that have the evidence that any animal uses evolution. There are hardly any experts on the matter and the weight on the shoulders of those that say evolution did it all , must be great. It’s not fair on them.

Not trying to point out how incredible it is that the egg turns into a chicken , or how incredible it is that a pair of lungs breath the air. It’s just that no one can say anything about how they exist or came about. It’s more that it is incredible that we can tell others about our invention of the idea of evolution and that evolution is paramount in how the egg or a pair of lungs exists. Then , could we really show any evidence to anyone that all the features on the chickens face has used our evolution idea to work in tandem with all the other organs like the lungs , and that somehow the chickens have four toes at the end of each of their legs to grip the ground so perfectly to walk.

This next bit gets a bit confusing , because a female chicken has a number of sort of unshelled eggs in the body that get fertilized by the male and then the new to be chicken is inside the solid shelled eggs that are laid. (i might be a bit wrong on that. So don’t trust me) But it makes talking about eggs a little tricky. But like the acorns that turn into other oak trees and the acorn no longer exists in the growing tree , and the male sperm and female egg that turns into a human that also no longer exist in a growing baby that turns into an adult , the chicken continues to grow into an adult chicken without the initial egg that turned into the chicken. That is , the egg and all that was in it has gone like the acorn is gone.

So we could wonder about whether the initial physical start of the acorn or eggs on their own have in them enough properties to turn into trees or animals with common features like hearts and brains and blood etc. So does the acorn have enough on it’s own to grow into an oak tree , and does any egg have in it all that is needed for it to become sort of similar to it’s mum and dad.

It would follow of course that we’d have to also wonder if the egg has in it , it’s future ability to run , skip , swim , hop or fly and to see and have thought. Then if we think of an egg as having in it it’s future those abilities , then we might conjecture further and imagine that we could somehow tap into it. We could take say the future enormous strength from a crocodile egg that turns into a crocodile or the flying ability of a butterfly. But i suppose that if the crocodile egg is reliant on the to follow nature thing idea , then that couldn’t happen. Still worth a thought though , as we don’t know what is in a crocodile egg that makes it be another crocodile , and we also don’t know what is in a butterfly egg that gives the baby butterfly the abilities to fly etc. It’s certainly hard though to grasp how an egg turns into anything , but they do seem to , and given that we don’t have any idea about what is going on it is worth entertaining other ideas other than evolution.

So because we don’t actually have any idea about what’s really going on after the acorn or egg and their ingredients are gone , we can at best conjecture. So we could conjecture that the initial in place acorn or fertilized egg in some way calls to nature to give them all those tree and animal body plans with parts and chemicals galore and the ability to grow or move or fly and eat.
That is , maybe nature can act on , and make all sorts of things with the seeds or eggs that are there.. So could it be say that the acorn is making this call to nature to turn it into another fully growing oak tree.

It can seem with the thoughts that we can have about it all , that life and trees all happen very easily , after all there isn’t much failure. The same maybe occurs for any seed of any flower , so could it be that all seeds in some way call to , or let nature know that it is there to make the new tree or flower. The acorn from an oak tree , that soon disintegrates after it starts growing , is there for nature to kick in and do it’s thing to have it grow into the oak tree.
A tree and all flowers do somehow suck in carbon from the air to give them their physicalness , and they have leaves of a certain shape and form to do it. Is that though an ability that exists in a seed alone , or could what we can’t see , nature or a phenomena be turning the acorn into a tree and other seeds into flowers.
That is , could the eggs of millions of animals also call to nature for all the body parts that they require before they too disintegrate. Could it be that the acorns and seeds and eggs provide the food source for the phenomena or nature to get started. Conjecture. But the whole thing is quite bizarre however we think about it , so from dinosaurs and eyes to humans and eggs , we we can basically ponder any idea at all.

Evolution is , or was , one idea put forward over 150 years ago. It was and still is based on observable physicality’s with the the added dimension of natural selection. Somehow , according to the theory , the physicality’s come about and natural selection does whatever it does.
It’s not that natural selection is thought to be a real thing that acts upon say an evolving animal , but it is an explanation to say that an evolving animal or tree with the most successful aspects or features or chemicals or abilities is naturally more likely to survive.

To conjecture that either animals and plants evolved or that nature is called upon by the seed or an egg to make the tree or animal in one go , is like the difference in conjectures of there being either a mind or consciousness that exists outside of the body , or of a mind or conscious that is produced by the brain.
If it is were the case that eggs and seeds are acted on by nature and phenomena , and the mind or consciousness is separate to the body , then it could mean that the phenomena and mind could do very much more than it does.

Say we think of running. We don’t really know how we move or run but we think we are using our thoughts to move. We feel in charge of it. We also though do feel the restriction of how fast we can move or run and put it down to the body setup of muscles etc. Competitive athletes try to get past it , but it can’t be done .
Quite possibly is that the mind or phenomena thing will only make the legs run so fast to prevent body injury , but if the legs were more muscular then maybe it could move the legs faster.
That would mean that the body is there , but the whatever is moving the body doesn’t move the body too much to cause it to be injured. And it would be injured if it ran too fast. The joints and ligaments would get injured if they moved too fast.
It’s possibly not the other way around , in that the body muscles themselves dictate themselves what they can do , even though that’s how it feels to us. The phenomena or mind or whatever only applies as much energy or movement as the body and muscles can take , otherwise the joints and sockets and bones would be injured.

The mind or phenomena thing in say an animal like the cheetah will give the ability to run as fast as a car on an a motorway. That of course is because the cheetah has the body to do it. But if we think that there is a mind or phenomena behind a physical body and that it only pushes the running to a possible running speed based on the body’s physicality , then that would mean that given the right body , the running speed could be much faster. On it’s own , the phenomena or mind or whatever could maybe move at the speed of light. That of course is only if the mind is a separate thing.

The same is worth thinking of with our ability to do mathematics. We can with a bit of practice do say 12 times 13 in our head. It takes a bit of doing to do but when it becomes 126 times 139 it’s altogether different. We can do it written down on paper if we are taught how to do it , but why isn’t it doable with just our thoughts. Again the mind or phenomena or whatever , if separate to the physical body could possibly do it , but like the cheetah’s running speed only being pushed so fast , it only pushes the brains ability to do the two digit multiplications because the brain would be injured. It could otherwise possibly multiply unimaginable numbers.

Putting aside that we puzzle over whether it could be the brain producing consciousness or that the mind is separate , it’s not too far stretched to compare in a similar way as alluded to above that there is this thing that is separate to the physical animal or tree that makes the physical animal or tree grow , and for simplicity , we can call it nature or the phenomena of the animal or tree.

Hence the conjecture that seeds and eggs call on nature , or tell nature that they are here , because the seed or egg might not have the ability on their own to turn into what they become , as after all , the initial seed or egg is gone within hours or days. The ingredients in the chicken egg do appear to turn into veins and then lungs and legs and eyes and in 21 days are a fully formed chicken.
Putting all aside though , and sticking with just the evolution idea , did the egg or seed evolve into their state of being able to further produce more trees and plants and legs and wings and blood and milk etc. It just seems silly to try to put our idea of an evolution process to it.

Next page

Home