Before I go on I would like to point out that I have structurally disassembled your arguments.
If you say so. But I'll play along with you. You want structural disassembly, even of extraneous and irrelevant comments? Here we go. (for the last time, because I really loath repeating myself)
Leaving a lot of my questions unanswered even if you find them ridiculous only spawns gaping holes in your argument. It appears as though you are ignoring challenges. Just a friendly reminder to continue to deconstruct all opposing views.
No, because most of your questions are irrelevant in light of the facts, which are all I have argued for here. Any other position, no matter how semantically pleasing, is irrelevant in light of evidence and as such it is pointless to address them. This is why I have refrained from dissecting your position piece by piece and in it's entirety until now.
Also, standard debate format is not the dissection of your opponents position piece by piece but to address the primary issue, or the opponents position as a whole.
And they did this research? May I see the evidence?
From the sources I have read, the scientists were merely looking at the structural construct of an eggshell. It appears the media transformed it into a chicken first scenario.
Attached to the article was the scientific paper which was published. I also looked it up elsewhere the other day to see any more articles on the issue. As was stated in the link, ovocleidin-17 is not only a protein necessary in the formation of the chicken egg, but it is only found in the ovaries of the chicken.
It has also been discovered in several species which evolved from the chicken, and never in a species who evolved prior to the chicken. This indicates that this protein did not exist prior to the chicken. This information was all there for you look at.
And again what evidence is there that this figurative scenario took place? This presumption seems to depend on the idea of your personal thoughts.
Yet again, it is all there in the initial report, as well as the attached publication.
Why would the chicken only arise from an unrelated egg?
Evolution. That's how it works. This goes back to my earlier statement that it is rather obvious that you do not have a solid grasp on the functions of evolutionary biology. I believe Mage put it in the simplest terms for you.
If the egg is birthed by another pseudo-chicken yet contains a chicken, is it a chicken egg?
No, it's not. For the sake of clarification, and not to imply that such an extreme example takes place in nature: An eagle lays an egg. This would be an eagle egg. from that egg a chicken is born. This does not change the fact that the egg was an eagle egg. So the egg from whence the first chicken hatched was not a chicken egg. And now we have scientific proof of this.
Or, does the classification of the egg lie in the animal that lays it?
Yes. This is the point we have been trying to make clear to you for 12 hours. Thank you for finally catching on.
The semantics are key to certain questions. Especially those which have been introduced into the common vernacular.
Certainly they can be. However when you are arguing from a semantic position which is in direct odds with the facts it makes your position seem juvenile and fruitless, much to my ire. I know I have difficulty at times elucidating the facts but this particular conversation has been highly frustrating. I do hope that I have fully answered all of your questions because I cannot explain this any more clearly.
