The Bible

[cybercoma]

The problem with the word bias is that it doesn't mean "taking a position on something." It means something very particular in the sense of research. I think people are using it in the former sense without realizing that you can take a position on something and not be biased in the scientific sense. All stances are not biased, as bias is a logical flaw in reasoning. It may be perfectly logical to take a particular stance when the alternatives are not reasonable.

Edited November 3, 2012 by cybercoma

[Bonam]

The problem with the word bias is that it doesn't mean "taking a position on something." It means something very particular in the sense of research. I think people are using it in the former sense without realizing that you can take a position on something and not be biased in the scientific sense. All stances are not biased, as bias is a logical flaw in reasoning. It may be perfectly logical to take a particular stance when the alternatives are not reasonable.

Yes, I agree, taking a particular stance can certainly be logical. I certainly believe that the majority of stances I take are logical, for example. That doesn't have much to do with my prior post. I was merely pointing out that when people post links, their opponents almost invariably come up with some excuse to dismiss it out of hand (such as accusing the link of coming from a biased source), rather than attempting to refute the argument/information presented in the link.

[Sleipnir]

The problem with the word bias is that it doesn't mean "taking a position on something."

Yeah I do noticed that some people are throwing the term 'bias' around without probably knowing what it really means.

[cybercoma]

Yes, I agree, taking a particular stance can certainly be logical. I certainly believe that the majority of stances I take are logical, for example. That doesn't have much to do with my prior post. I was merely pointing out that when people post links, their opponents almost invariably come up with some excuse to dismiss it out of hand (such as accusing the link of coming from a biased source), rather than attempting to refute the argument/information presented in the link.

Yeah. I agree with you. That's why you need to show bias.

For example, Michael Hardner in another thread pointed out why he believed a poll on Muslims was questionable (it was commissioned by a particular group that is known for being against Muslims) and then went on to say why the poll was questionable and may be biased (the methodology was not published). In that case he wasn't necessarily saying that the poll was biased, but indicating that the potential for it to be biased was high given those factors.

In most other cases on this forum, people just say "that's biased" as if that's good enough in itself to prove bias.

[Bonam]

Yeah. I agree with you. That's why you need to show bias.

For example, Michael Hardner in another thread pointed out why he believed a poll on Muslims was questionable (it was commissioned by a particular group that is known for being against Muslims) and then went on to say why the poll was questionable and may be biased (the methodology was not published). In that case he wasn't necessarily saying that the poll was biased, but indicating that the potential for it to be biased was high given those factors.

I was actually going to use that example to show precisely the other point. In his very first response, his first sentence was "I'm sorry but this screams bias" (that's a lot stronger statement than "may be biased"). That assertion was based on nothing more than the name of the group that published the stats. Now, the group may or may not be biased, and omitting details of methodology certainly does nothing to help their case, but MH did nothing to demonstrate that it was. Further, neither did he show that any of the assertions made in the source were incorrect. Rather, he proclaimed that the research was biased simply because it originated from a group whose objectives he did not agree with, and dismissed it out of hand, not bothering to address any of the claims that were put forth. Notice his second reply speaks in broad generalities unrelated to any of the claims in the original post of the thread. I don't think that is a good model for debate on this forum, but it is sadly all too common, and that thread is an archetypical example, where even our esteemed facilitator does exactly that.

In most other cases on this forum, people just say "that's biased" as if that's good enough in itself to prove bias.

You're right, in many cases it is even worse, people often dismiss links due to "bias" without even the half sentence pause to say "there wasn't methodology posted".

Edited November 3, 2012 by Bonam

[bleeding heart]

And there Bonam has aptly delineated a major problem with the "leftist media bias" theme in a few swift strokes.

[cybercoma]

And there Bonam has aptly delineated a major problem with the "leftist media bias" theme in a few swift strokes.

This forum is so ironic sometimes, eh?

[WIP]

I took it as insight into human well being gained through neuroscience will help us derive solutions. He also claims repeatedly that our current understanding is currently too limited. He doesn't claim to have the answers.

I think this depends on whether or not you're a relativist. I'd say that like racism, sexism or sexual orientationism, slavery was always immoral even if it was considered normal and acceptable at one time.

He is certainly just a theorist and I don't agree with all of his ideas. However, the fact that he believes that morality should be based on fact, reason and the advancement of human well being certainly make him different than most theologians, politicians and philosophers. I especially like the fact that he is challenging the notion that science can have no input into moral issues.

Harris goes beyond using science to find solutions to moral quandaries, to claiming that all moral questions can be answered through the scientific process. He would qualify as a believer in what is loosely referred to as scientism, since he regards science as the sum total of all rational inquiry, rather than a method to inform us about the world and the choices we should make. Harris claims that moral judgments are....or at least could be in theory - scientific facts. There may be some overlap between science and philosophy, but Harris claims that science - and neuroscience in particular, can, at least in theory, answer a question such as: when does a fetus feel pain, and that knowing the answer will determine whether an abortion should be permissible or not.

But, before we can even start that scientific process we have to make that judgment call that pain should be the determining factor. So we begin with the obvious starting point that Harris's scientific morality is grounded in consequentialism (maximizing happiness and minimizing pain and suffering etc.). There may be great value in using consequences of actions as a determining factor in judging the merits of rules and actions, but who says our life's goal should be all about acquiring as much happiness as possible? If that's what it's all about, we could just take drugs that stimulate endorphin levels 24/7 and feel happy all the time.

I'm not a moral relativist myself, but neither do I believe that there is some linear moral progress towards a perfect world....which seems to be the point of Harris and evolutionary psychologists like Stephen Pinker. When I have the time, I've been wanting to start a thread on the whole subject of progress in all its forms, because I believe that the source of modern malaise in its entirety cannot be separated from our unqualified faith in technological progress and belief in linear progress of history. It might be more satisfying to believe that the future will be better and brighter than the present (especially for secular humanists), but faith in progress is ironically, the core religion that binds atheists and fundamentalist Christians alike these days.

The Christian fundamentalist may hate scientific facts that contradict literal interpretation of their religious treasures, while embracing the advantages of technology and new invention that creates more wealth....but so does the typical atheist humanist these days who is not as rational as he or she believes and also ignores the obvious facts that we live in a finite world, and unless we can actually escape the bounds of this planet, we are constrained by finite capacity of resources to build with. Whether we accept it or not, history will turn out to be circular, not linear, and a much smaller human population will be forced by the constraints of this world to re-adopt most of the patterns of life that humans followed for thousands of years. And, the question then will be how will the crises and pressures of life in the coming generations inform moral choices?

Throughout modern history, religions have been created and developed that contain explanatory myths of the world and rules for the society. We don't need to go in to all of the mistakes and problems created for adherents when they are faced with the dilemma of choosing between a rule created thousands of years ago in a different time and different living conditions, and the arduous task of reforming or reinterpreting the rules, without making them irrelevant completely.....yes, I agree the world's religions are chock full of problems and that's why I don't belong to one! But, antitheists like Harris, claim that there is nothing of value to be found in the past, and the new religion of science will lead the way to a perfect future on earth.....I guess I would fall into the skeptic category on that one.

[bleeding heart]

Throughout modern history, religions have been created and developed that contain explanatory myths of the world and rules for the society. We don't need to go in to all of the mistakes and problems created for adherents when they are faced with the dilemma of choosing between a rule created thousands of years ago in a different time and different living conditions, and the arduous task of reforming or reinterpreting the rules, without making them irrelevant completely.....yes, I agree the world's religions are chock full of problems and that's why I don't belong to one! But, antitheists like Harris, claim that there is nothing of value to be found in the past, and the new religion of science will lead the way to a perfect future on earth.....I guess I would fall into the skeptic category on that one.

I'm inclined to agree. I think Harris, the late Hitchens, and some others, having intellectually and emotionally immersed themselves so thoroughly in the (quite real, yes) lesser qualities of religion have missed, or at least insuffiently explored, a crucial point:

Religion did not cause the bad qualities of humankind: it inherited them. Religion is not the big picture. It's more an effect than a cause, if I can simplify a complex, reciprocal relationship.

[betsy]

Yes, I agree, taking a particular stance can certainly be logical. I certainly believe that the majority of stances I take are logical, for example. That doesn't have much to do with my prior post. I was merely pointing out that when people post links, their opponents almost invariably come up with some excuse to dismiss it out of hand (such as accusing the link of coming from a biased source), rather than attempting to refute the argument/information presented in the link.

Yes, I agree that mostly, links and sources are being dismissed. And I certainly believe that majority of stances I take are logical too.

However, logic sometimes - if not mostly - necessitates to dismiss a source that's being given, for reasons that I usually give in details with sources to support those reasons.

I haven't been reading the other reference to Michael Hardner, so I couldn't comment on that sample or comparison at the use of the term, "bias."

In this particular case however about my dismissal of PZ Myers, I think any logical person - not clouded by bias - will see the logic, why PZ Myers cannot be taken seriously. Some who insists that I did not address the issue couldn't even recognize that, yes, I did address the issue!

Why should I try to refute a personal opinion?

Just because some people here think, "he is PZ Myers," doesn't mean his personal opinion ought to be taken as fact, or even seriously - especially when his opinion is opposing another scientist's.

He blames another scientist for this "mess" - for giving that statement, I guess. Like I said, that interview was carried widely by media, therefore the science community knew about it....and they could easily correct any misconception taken from that interview.

I gave a legitimate public announcement by media, and they counter with a blog - a personal opinion - by a well-known anti-ID/Creationism activist, who's also a confrontationalist?

Then someone dug up a 2006 article, 4 years before this new finding. If one can only find a 2006 article....to make up for a personal blog....what does logic say?

What more, his biography states that he is a hardline atheist actively opposing Intelligent Design or Creationism. Plus, he is a confrontationalist! He likes to disagree! He even confronted fellow-atheists for their attitude or the way they think about their atheistic faith!

Surely his background does pose a serious question about his bias. It's like asking the opinion of the Ayatollah for his views on Western Society - and taking it seriously when he says we're all spawns of the devil!

Yes, I agree with you that sources are being dismissed by both sides - but that shouldn't deter anyone- from either side - who has a logical case not to bother with giving your sources to prove your point, or support your claim. You should! Even if they simply ignore them. At least it's posted as evidence that you know what you're on about, and that you are a credible poster with something substantive to say.

Edited November 4, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Btw, surely no one among you is insisting I should actually address and refute the 2006 article?

Edited November 4, 2012 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

Yes, I agree that mostly, links and sources are being dismissed. And I certainly believe that majority of stances I take are logical too.

However, logic sometimes - if not mostly - necessitates to dismiss a source that's being given, for reasons that I usually give in details with sources to support those reasons.

You have a source that DOES NOT support your argument.

Its equivalent to saying....1 + 1 = 3

Some who insists that I did not address the issue couldn't even recognize that, yes, I did address the issue!

You did not at all.

Why should I try to refute a personal opinion?

It's not a personal opinion, it's scientific fact. Why is this simple concept so difficult for you to grasp?

If you want to dispute a scientific fact, you need to dispute it with another appropriate scientific fact - or point out the potential flaw with the methodology of the experiment that gave rise to the result.

Just because some people here think, "he is PZ Myers," doesn't mean his personal opinion ought to be taken as fact, or even seriously - especially when his opinion is opposing another scientist's.

He blames another scientist for this "mess" - for giving that statement, I guess. Like I said, that interview was carried widely by media, therefore the science community knew about it....and they could easily correct any misconception taken from that interview.

All that has nothing to do with the intent of the argument - you keep deflecting the argument.

I gave a legitimate public announcement by media, and they counter with a blog - a personal opinion - by a well-known anti-ID/Creationism activist, who's also a confrontationalist? Then someone dug up a 2006 article, 4 years before this new finding. If one can only find a 2006 article....to make up for a personal blog....what does logic say?

You are so clueless...it amaze me to no end. I do have to wonder if you're serious about debating or a class A6 troll.

Yes, I agree with you that sources are being dismissed by both sides - but that shouldn't deter anyone- from either side - who has a logical case not to bother with giving your sources to prove your point, or support your claim.

You didn't have a logical case, don't kid yourself.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Mr.Canada]

We must keep our thoughts on the Holy Father today as only through Him may we have never ending life. He gave us His only begotten son to die for us so that we may be able to gain entry into heaven. For this sacrifice we must be grateful and serve Him to show our unwavering gratitude. He suffered so that we may not suffer but have everlasting life in heaven.

Go with God.

In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

[Guest]

We must keep our thoughts on the Holy Father today as only through Him may we have never ending life. He gave us His only begotten son to die for us so that we may be able to gain entry into heaven. For this sacrifice we must be grateful and serve Him to show our unwavering gratitude. He suffered so that we may not suffer but have everlasting life in heaven.

Go with God.

In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I don't get the "we may not suffer" bit. Have you looked about you recently?

[Sleipnir]

He suffered so that we may not suffer

Define 'suffer' and how it differs from today's suffering.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Sleipnir

[WIP]

I'm inclined to agree. I think Harris, the late Hitchens, and some others, having intellectually and emotionally immersed themselves so thoroughly in the (quite real, yes) lesser qualities of religion have missed, or at least insuffiently explored, a crucial point:

Religion did not cause the bad qualities of humankind: it inherited them. Religion is not the big picture. It's more an effect than a cause, if I can simplify a complex, reciprocal relationship.

Unfortunately, religious affiliation becomes a convenient handle for anyone who doesn't want to delve into the complexities of modern life. A few years ago, Robert Wright took on the grand, expansive project of trying to use game theory to analyze and describe the origins and progressions of religion over the ages.....and it's a project that may have been too ambitious even for a large book, but there are some interesting findings in his analysis of the development of the major monotheisms. One of note, is that the books of the Old Testament, such as Jonah - which present a concern for the wellbeing of foreigners, were written at times when Israel was at times of relative peace and prosperity, and had more to gain through cooperative relationships with neighbours; while the many 'slay thine enemies and dash the heads of infants on the rocks' warfaring books were written during the times when Israel was engaged in either bloody wars of expansion, or desperately defending their own territories.

Anyone who takes a naturalistic look at Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is aware that they present different and conflicting themes and even moral values in their pages.....which have kept modern fundamentalists continuously busy coming up with new ways to spin the stories and make excuses for contradictions. My takeaway is that people can use these religions to be at their best, or use them to excuse warfare, genocides, and persecuting all perceived enemies.

The big mistake of modern antitheists is that they think there is nothing of value contained in centuries old religious traditions, while engaging in the hubristic assumption that their modern scientific humanistic theories provide all that's needed to create paradise on Earth. Just judging from the number of atheists who line up behind extreme nationalistic causes and even the most ruthless economic theories, I would say that there is no guarantee that Stalin and Mao were mere anomalies, and the same thing couldn't happen all over again under a political movement that made replacing religion with scientific humanism one of its grand goals.

[Mighty AC]

Well....you're entitled to your own personal opinion. Just so happens I don't agree with it.[/Quote]How is it that you think your arguments are factual?? Several posters have pointed out the flaws and you simply ignore them.

Please answer this one question. When did a scientist ever say that chickens producing eggs crystallized using the OC-17 protein could not have hatched from eggs crystallized in a different way? You'll notice that it never happened and that's the leap from fact to fiction required spin this ridiculous idea.

Mighty AC, you try to knockdown the author Eric Lyons (never heard of him) by saying, he "has made it his mission to trick Christians into thinking that evolution is not a fact. Lyons is a dishonest idiot" - yet you don't provide anything to show that! That's just your opinion.....because you don't like what he's saying.

Never heard of Eric Lyons? That's the guy you quoted to start this 'chicken and egg' topic.

Lyons is a christian apologist writer that routinely spreads completely false information on science (especially evolution) topics to back his young earth creationist delusion. Like a flat earth the young earth can be demonstrated to be false.

Here are some examples of his work:

- Here is an example where Lyons tells readers that Dinosaurs lived with humans.

- Here is another where Lyons encourages belief in a young earth

- Here he employs fraudulent arguments to again challenge evolution and dating methods.

You may ask, how Lyons is qualified to discuss science topics? He must have a degree in science or some science training right? Nope...he majored in Bible and History then went on to get a masters degree in "ministry".

Funny thing about apologist tools. They try to discredit science but then use it in an attempt to lend credence to their beliefs. It takes a rare breed of Kool Aid drinking idiot to swallow young earth, dinosaur and human coexisting ideas, but Lyons has found a small loyal group that really want to buy in.

[betsy]

How is it that you think your arguments are factual?? Several posters have pointed out the flaws and you simply ignore them.

Please answer this one question. When did a scientist ever say that chickens producing eggs crystallized using the OC-17 protein could not have hatched from eggs crystallized in a different way? You'll notice that it never happened and that's the leap from fact to fiction required spin this ridiculous idea.

Never heard of Eric Lyons? That's the guy you quoted to start this 'chicken and egg' topic.

Lyons is a christian apologist writer that routinely spreads completely false information on science (especially evolution) topics to back his young earth creationist delusion. Like a flat earth the young earth can be demonstrated to be false.

Here are some examples of his work:

- Here is an example where Lyons tells readers that Dinosaurs lived with humans.

- Here is another where Lyons encourages belief in a young earth

- Here he employs fraudulent arguments to again challenge evolution and dating methods.

You may ask, how Lyons is qualified to discuss science topics? He must have a degree in science or some science training right? Nope...he majored in Bible and History then went on to get a masters degree in "ministry".

Funny thing about apologist tools. They try to discredit science but then use it in an attempt to lend credence to their beliefs. It takes a rare breed of Kool Aid drinking idiot to swallow young earth, dinosaur and human coexisting ideas, but Lyons has found a small loyal group that really want to buy in.

Mighty AC, you are shooting at the wrong target. It's not about Eric Lyons. Like I said, the report had been publicised widely. Okay, if Lyons distract you from the real issue, let's drop that article by Eric Lyons (I just happened to post that since it's the first one I opened). Here is another source:

'The chicken came first, not the egg', scientists prove

What came first: the chicken or the egg? It’s an age-old puzzle that’s stumped generations of scientists.

But now they believe they have cracked the conundrum of what came first.

British researchers say the chicken must have come first as the formation of eggs is only possible thanks to a protein found in the chicken’s ovaries.

‘It had long been suspected that the egg came first but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first,’ said Dr Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University, who worked with counterparts at Warwick University.

‘The protein had been identified before and it was linked to egg formation but by examining it closely we have been able to see how it controls the process,’ he added.

The protein – called ovocledidin-17 (OC-17) – acts as a catalyst to speed up the development of the shell.

Scientists used a super computer called HECToR, based in Edinburgh, to ‘zoom in’ on the formation of an egg.

It showed OC-17 was crucial in kick-starting crystallisation – the early stages of forming a shell.

The protein coverts calcium carbonate into calcite crystals which makes up the egg shell, creating six grammes of shell every 24 hours.

Read more: http://www.metro.co....e#ixzz2BLIPAH9d

See that? Two universities involved to boot - which mean several scientists involved!

Let me repeat what the article says:

".....but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first,’ said Dr Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University, who worked with counterparts at Warwick University."

They're saying they have SCIENTIFIC PROOF! They're not quoting a blog!

Come again? Who's trying to discredit science?

MightyAC:

When did a scientist ever say that chickens producing eggs crystallized using the OC-17 protein could not have hatched from eggs crystallized in a different way? You'll notice that it never happened and that's the leap from fact to fiction required spin this ridiculous idea.

"could not have hatched from eggs crystallized in a different way?" Wishful thinking cannot be used as a rebutt!

You can daydream about it though - nothing wrong with that.

Sit back and read your own question - and tell me who's leaping from fact to fiction!

With that kind of reasoning, you should be supportive of the possibility of ID, especially so when Dawkins himself admitted that he's not sure God does not exist. I hope you're an agnostic.

'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2BLLulpHJ

Looks like you've thrown me a boomerang! Everything came back to you.

Edited November 5, 2012 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

Read more: http://www.metro.co....e#ixzz2BLIPAH9d

See that? Two universities involved to boot - which mean several scientists involved!

Let me repeat what the article says:

".....but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first,’ said Dr Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University, who worked with counterparts at Warwick University."

They're saying they have SCIENTIFIC PROOF! They're not quoting a blog!

You are so clueless, it's sad. Tell me betsy, do you know how to think critically?

Sit back and read your own question - and tell me who's leaping from fact to fiction!

-holds up a mirror in front of betsy-

[Mighty AC]

Betsy, they have proof that, as far as we know, the chicken is the only bird that produces eggs crystallized with the help of OC-17. Nobody is arguing that. Other hard shelled eggs are crystallized with the help of different calcium binding proteins.

I'll ask the question again: When did a scientist ever say that chickens producing eggs crystallized using the OC-17 protein could not have hatched from eggs crystallized in a different way? That's the dishonest leap being made here.

[Mighty AC]

Harris goes beyond using science to find solutions to moral quandaries, to claiming that all moral questions can be answered through the scientific process. [/Quote] No, Harris believes that advances being made in neuroscience can provide more factual insight into human well being and thus act as a guide for morality.

So we begin with the obvious starting point that Harris's scientific morality is grounded in consequentialism (maximizing happiness and minimizing pain and suffering etc.). There may be great value in using consequences of actions as a determining factor in judging the merits of rules and actions, but who says our life's goal should be all about acquiring as much happiness as possible? If that's what it's all about, we could just take drugs that stimulate endorphin levels 24/7 and feel happy all the time.[/Quote] Harris, believes we should seek to maximize human well being, not just happiness. He states many times that there are multiple peeks on the moral landscape, he even uses the drug example you mentioned. Again, science and neuroscience can help us determine the peaks and choose between them.

yes, I agree the world's religions are chock full of problems and that's why I don't belong to one! But, antitheists like Harris, claim that there is nothing of value to be found in the past, and the new religion of science will lead the way to a perfect future on earth.

That's not at all true. Harris does not claim there is nothing of value in the past nor does he claim science will create a perfect future. Harris, simply states that science is a tool that will benefit the formation of morals. I agree with him that laws and morals built with the intent of maximizing human well being are far more suitable than many of the rules we created before we accumulating our current body of knowledge. I also agree that morality based in as much fact as possible can be universal and can replace the relativism we have now.

For example, allowing a teacher to beat a child with a stick to the point of breaking the skin should not be considered a moral act in a southern state but immoral in the north. Certain states use the bible to justify this practice yet we have already studied it enough to know that positive behaviour is not the result. We know that it actually leads to increased violence among the victims. Thus, knowledge gained through scientific study is helping to overturn ancient and mythology based practices.

[betsy]

Betsy, they have proof that, as far as we know, the chicken is the only bird that produces eggs crystallized with the help of OC-17. Nobody is arguing that. Other hard shelled eggs are crystallized with the help of different calcium binding proteins.

I'll ask the question again: When did a scientist ever say that chickens producing eggs crystallized using the OC-17 protein could not have hatched from eggs crystallized in a different way? That's the dishonest leap being made here.

I won't go as far as accusing you of being dishonest - but, yes, you're leaping from fact to fiction. Read your question again.

Okay, let's try again:

They've cracked it at last! The chicken DID come before the egg

By Daily Mail Reporter

UPDATED:07:02 GMT, 14 July 2010

It has been the ultimate philosophical and scientific mystery for centuries - until now, that is.

Scientists yesterday claimed to have cracked the riddle of whether the chicken or the egg came first.

The answer, they say, is the chicken.

Researchers found that the formation of egg shells relies on a protein found only in a chicken's ovaries.

Therefore, an egg can exist only if it has been inside a chicken.

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2BNtNl6dI

That ought to set you straight. If not.....then believe what you want to believe. But I'd say, you're in denial!

Edited November 5, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

WIP, your discussion with some of the posters had branched away from the topic, and it is quite interesting. However, it needs its own thread.

[Sleipnir]

I won't go as far as accusing you of being dishonest - but, yes, you're leaping from fact to fiction. Read your question again.

That ought to set you straight. If not.....then believe what you want to believe. But I'd say, you're in denial!

Betsy, there is a difference between debating politically/philosophically and scientifically.

It's not that you're dishonest, but mainly because you're clueless on how to read journals, verify sources, thinking critically and stuff like that.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Mighty AC]

Researchers found that the formation of egg shells relies on a protein found only in a chicken's ovaries.

Therefore, an egg can exist only if it has been inside a chicken.[/Quote]

That ought to set you straight. If not.....then believe what you want to believe. But I'd say, you're in denial!

The newspaper story you are quoting is simplifying two points from the actual article...which I doubt you have read.

1) Chicken eggs are crystallized with the help of a calcium binding protein called OC-17.

2) OC-17 is, so far, unique to chicken eggs.

BUT... Nobody is disputing either point.

However, you are still avoiding my question. I will rephrase it and precede it with a few points to hopefully make it more clear for you.

1) Many species produce hard shelled eggs.

2) There are many calcium binding proteins used in egg production.

3) Chickens produce eggs using the protein OC-17

Why do you believe the first chickens to contain the OC-17 protein could not have been hatched from eggs crystallized in a different manner?

To me it seems like you are purposefully avoiding this obvious question. However, if you honestly think you have been addressing it please let me know and I will help fill in the blanks.