Monday, March 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Links
Neat Articles
- A New Twist in Penguins’ Already Uncertain Future
- Biologist Teaches the Nation’s Judges About Genetics
- Can Bovine Growth Hormone Help Slow Global Warming?
- Deep Down, We Can’t Fool Even Ourselves
- Looking at Yesterday's Genes for Tomorrow's Cures
- Slideshow: Hiding Chameleons and Martian Hot Springs
- The Mirror Neuron Revolution: Explaining What Makes Humans Social
- White Patches Found in Mars Trench Are Ice, Scientists Say
- Why Fly When You Can Float?
Blog Archive
About the Administrator
Fighting for knowledge, galumphing, and science.
49 comments:
Ummm...well....hmmm....I do believe that this is by far one of the most difficult questions I have ever been asked! Hmmm.....quite difficult....
well, just look at keller!!!
he DEFINITALYY came first!!!
he he he jk jk
Are you hitch-hiking across the Rockies with a hobo sign and a chicken, Keller? 0.o
Also, totally the chicken.
Dear Lord! Are you trying to kick the chicken again keller?
letter C comes before letter K, so Chicken came first. ~Team
keller came first but i dont know who would win in a fight?
Well, i do believe, with my complex math equation: (K/C)/K^2+2(K+2), K being Keller, and C being chicken, that keller did indeed come before the chicken. it is all simple, he created the chicken by using his mighty biology powers and combined a duck with a mongoose. they were both once birds, but as evolution took place, elephants became grey and pigs pink. oh, and pigs used to fly. just an FYI. but seriously, keller came first. and he also created charlie, because keller is cool like that. yeah, you all wish you could be Mr. Keller for a day. Ha! but you cant! by the way, dont leave the window open tonight, it will get cold.......... that is all....
-Mr. Adronesn (anderson)
go here if you want to see the keller chicken...
http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb133/MotoXfreak323/chickenkeller.jpg
it is cool...
-Luke Anderson...
sorry, last one didn't go through, just add each line to address bar individually and then go to it... it is cool
:):):):):)
http://i209
.photobucket.com/albums/bb133
/MotoXfreak323/chickenkeller.jpg
oh my keller of course hes
the coolest chickens arent
cool!
well im gonna say the chicken because i agree with team.
and the chicken doesnt tell made up stories or disagree with me
yeah, I'm going to say the chicken, because obviously keller evolved from the chicken. Notice the posture of both-close to the ground, staring at each other. If humans can evolve from chimps, then keller can evolve from a chicken.
aww... that classic question of who came first... keller or the chicken. With my extensive amount of research my conclusion is that the chicken did indeed come first.
(sorry keller)
WAIT!!! i got it the chicken came before the egg right? well then the same thing applies here, the chicken comes before the egg head
hahahaha!!!!!
i would say Keller came first....lol...it did look like he came first...which is ok..
oh yeah forgot to tell I'm Erin S. from 2nd.
The chicken came first, it is all simple logic. Something horendisly weird would have had to be hanging out for Keller to show up. The fact that the chicken and Keller look alike is proof of evolution.
The "Keller" seems to bear strong resemblence to the "chicken". But the "keller" appears to be more "socialy intelegent". so therefore the "keller" logicly evolved from the "chicken". therefore the chicken came first. -Jake/ricardo de la vega
Keller is really cool but i think the chicken came first.
I concur with anon! The "chicken" and the "Keller" do look very close in relation to their faces.
i think the stick in the middle came first....lol
yeah keller is really cool, but i think the chicken came first
WHEN IS THE NEW QUESTION COMING???
I'm glad you're so enthusiastic, but we're not going to have a new question until the week after next, I believe around April 7. See, very few people even know there was a second question of the week, so we're going to leave it up a week longer than usual, and Keller can let everyone know that there is a question.
Also, I suppose this would be a good place to note that if you haven't posted on the previous question, you should, because by the end of next week it will be closed to comments (there will be two questions of the week open at a time, the current one and the one before that).
I'm still not sure....hmmm....oh by the way Keller....in the book reviews, Tuesdays With Morrie is by Mitch Albom....not Alborn....just to let you know.
Thanks for pointing out the typo, terrex. I'll fix it right away.
Anytime! ^_^
mmm...is a very tough 4 me but i think that after a loy of thinking that the chicken did come first im sorry mister keller it happens!!-dulce
What a silly question! Of course the chicken came first! If it hadn't, then the Easter Bunny wouldn't have had any Easter eggs to bring to his biology class!
(loved it Keller!)
-allie
Or Reddy's!
I'm going to have to say the chicken came first. It was already there before Keller showed up on his quest to the Trans-Rockies, and it most likely where Keller left it, which means it is still there, and would be there first again if Keller went there again.
-Jacob Haun
I would have to say Keller came first because he of course created the chicken.
I whole-heartedly agree with you, Jacob. Although it certainly depends upon the interpretation of the question, it is most likely that the chicken came to that spot before Keller, and thus "came before" him.
i would have to say keller, cause you look a lot older than that chicken does.
The Chicken Noodle soup.
MMM MMM GOOD POSSIBLITIES CAMBLES
well since the chicken came from the egg and no one knows where keller came from i would have to say neither. unless someone can tell me where he came from. then i might be able to give you an answer to that. unless keller came from an egg. then i would have to go back in time to see which hatched first. lol. jk.
-- Evann [Thoms]
How many ways can you persuade us that the chicken, Keller, or the stick came first Admin? I would like to know! Hehe
Well, my previous comment details one explanation for the "Chicken beat Keller" theory. As for the less popular "Keller came first" theory, if one considers the fact that the average life span of a chicken ranges from as little as five years to a maximum of fifteen, it is impossible that the chicken "came first" - aka, was born first (Note that these two arguments do not coincide, however, because I am considering a different interpretation each time). Lastly, the stick could have came first because it is a sizable stick, not just a twig; thus, it is less likely that the stick could have been shifted from its current position by the wind, and as it presents no nutrition that I am aware of for animals, it is not likely to have been moved by animals. Per these facts, it is reasonable to assume that the stick arrived at that spot first.
However, I think with well though out arguments (of which there are many more than those I listed), all of the options, Chicken, Keller, and Stick, are quite easily defended.
Ms. Administrator,
I am surprised by your thinking and observations of the available data that is clearly obvious within the picture. How could you miss the simple connection between the stick and the male chicken (notice the head and his posturing). It is obvious that the chicken is attracted to the stick (see picture again),and some might even form the conclusion that Keller is a genetically modify organism(GMO) between stick and chicken. To add to the mystery many of you will not see that the chicken is dancing with the stick. So when taking into consideration Keller's attraction and ability to stick dancing(pole), it is quite apparent that he is indeed a species of Chickenus Polevus. End of Story
Professor,
Those are indeed impressive observations, and I shall work on my process of gathering such information so that I do not miss obvious and important facts of this kind again. However, I do have one objection to this theory. As we learned in class while reading about binomial nomenclature, widely different species cannot breed, and it is my humble opinion that the chicken and the stick are widely differing species, even from different kingdoms. Therefore, it is indeed improbably, nay impossible, that anyone would result from a cross between a chicken and a stick.
However, I would be willing to recant my objection in the face of evidence that states that scientists have the ability to create such a cross in the laboratory. In this case, your observation regarding the attraction of the chicken to the stick is irrelevant and misleading (suggesting a natural cross between the two organisms).
Admin
and
Professor,
I think you two need a life... however kk i am siding with the admin due to the plain and simple fact that i just like her more than you.
I am sorry to say that i have nothing further to say.
I thank you for your very honest support, Kranky.
Ms. Administrator,
You honor me with your comments administrator. Your re-observations of the available data, your learnings in class and your keen sense of "what could" has lead you to a somewhat sound conclusion. This being said, I would like to point out a slight hole in your thinking. Science by definition is always changing and the possibility of "Keller" coming from the unthinkable cross of the "stick" and the "chicken." is clear. Yes, past thinking has stated that a cross between Kingdoms is unlikely, but recent thinking has shined light on the possibility of cross Kingdom species. How could this be possible? Both the stick and the chicken and Keller meet all the characteristics of a living organism. Also, many scientists agree that the lines between Kingdoms are thinning. The Kingdom Monera has both plant and animal characteristics as does "Keller." I would like to also point out that genetic drift has probably played a part, as might spontaneous generation.
So, in the light of this forward thinking by the Professor you might want to consider restating your conclusions.
A small piece of evidence that you might not see clearly in the photo. Keller seems to be pecking at the ground to obtain energy and paying tribute to his parents by his very low posture.
As for Kranky, you need to rethink your alliance to me. Does the word "Grade" help?
Professor,
The profound statements in your reply truly reflect the expertise you have gained through years of study in the field of biology. Your observations are quite thought-provoking. However, upon analysis, your arguments break down, or are incomplete.
For instance, at one point you state that "Yes, past thinking has stated that a cross between Kingdoms is unlikely, but recent thinking has shined light on the possibility of cross Kingdom species." Unfortunately, the fact that you do not link to a reputable, scientific paper on the subject makes this argument an invalid point. And even if genetic engineering has indeed reached such a point that scientists have the ability to create crosses between the species of the Plantae kingdom and those of the Animalia, which I admit, may be possible in the laboratory, this development would be much too recent; it is clear that the cross you describe as possible would have had to occur some time ago, not "recently." Your personal reasoning for this cross' probability, that all the organisms involved "meet all the characteristics of a living organism," is irrelevant. Again, unless you can provide the research of a reputable source, these characteristics have never been found to allow two organisms of different kingdoms to reproduce, to the best of my knowledge.
Secondly, you state that "many scientists agree that the lines between kingdoms are thinning." If such a statement were accurate, then in my opinion, the organisms of the world would not be spliting into more and more kingdoms. For example, the Monera kingdom that you refer to was split in 1977 into the Eubacteria and Archaebacteria kingdoms. Is this not evidence of the creation of more separation, not the thinning of lines? However, if you provide a statement by a scientist in this regard (that the lines between kingdoms are thinning), then I shall thoroughly retract my objection.
You also aver that genetic drift and spontaneous generation has contributed. I would humbly ask for elaboration on this point, because, after much research on the two topics, I do not see a connection to the topic at hand. For example, if I understand genetic drift correctly, it is the change in allele frequencies from one generation to the next. I am not sure how this would relate...
Lastly, your observations on Keller's actions, while interesting, represent merely one perception of his stance, and is certainly not concrete evidence regarding your theory.
However, my knowledge in the field of biology is limited, and I welcome any accurate rebuttals of my positions.
Ms Unrelenting Administrator,
Again, I thank you for your flattery and your logical rebuttal of the available picture data had some merit too. Also, your investigation into current available research was quite excellent for such a young mind. You are truly passionate about science and with the right role model will someday develop into a fine professor.
But, I still see a slight inability to see and conclude what is plainly so obveous, a cross Kingdom species. I have head rumor in certain academic circles about your pigheaded nature and this may be causing you to overlook what is clearly fact.
But, after rethinking my original hypothesis and available data I can see that "Keller" is actually a product of what I call the BIG BANG II event. This happened about 51 years ago with the start of a little known theory on global climatic changes brought about by the explosion of the automobile.
Take another look at the picture and that is my concrete evidence to the biological phenomenon of "The Keller" brought about by forces in nature that many will not be able to accept or even ponder.
Science, possibility, change, wonder and the pursuit of Galumphing. I rest my case!
Professor,
While I continue to admire your copious knowledge in the complex field of biology, I am afraid that your latest theory is not only as erroneous and unfounded as that of cross-kingdom species, but is actually the unfortunate byproduct of a series of natural mutations to some of your cognitive abilities. I have come to this conclusion through a significant time of study, and I believe it to be a well supported hypothesis.
My theory states that Keller originated from Homo sapien parents, much as I suspected. However, it is a serious genetic disorder in your, the Professor's, mind that has caused you to develop outrageous hypotheses regarding the origin of Keller. The source of these strange ideas and the genetic disorder is a complicated, but logical process. The problem began when you were initially altered due to a genetic mutation, in accordance with natural variation. This mutation occurred in a gene that programs the replication of DNA; to be specific, it altered the process so that it became much more inaccurate, thus producing even more mutations among all parts of your genome, particularly the complicated genes of brain cells. This in turn led to mutations in many of your neurons as they multiplied that caused decreased function of the prefrontal area of the brain, which we use to plan and think about ourselves. Much scientific research has been completed on the prefrontal area in relation to this; for instance, this fMRI scan illustrates the decreased brain activity of someone recently discovered with similar mutations in the same area, suffering much of the same delusions I will discuss hereafter, compared to a normal individual.
The main symptom of this genetic disorder is the inability to rationally think about ourselves. In this case, the disorder has clearly created the most disillusions regarding the subject of your own origins, and as people with this disorder can easily apply the figments of their malfunctioning minds to others, this explains your absurd explanations of Keller's origins.
Note that in the case that the "Professor" and "Keller" are the same person, just referring to himself in third person, my theory holds equally strong, if not firmer, as you would in that case be clearly delusional about yourself, in multiple ways.
It is unfortunate that such a debilitating genetic disorder should strike such an otherwise brilliant professor, and we can only hope that scientists can make progress on a cure for these mutations. In the case of such a cure, we will be enabled to learn even more from you and your wealth of knowledge.
Professor,
You had mentioned earlier that all three, being the Chicken, Keller, and the Stick, that they all had the characteristics of a living organism....however, is this not true only to an extent? The stick, you see, was once alive....but it is clear that it is now not. How can it be categorized as a living organism? Can you explain to me how it is categorized as a living organism?
I think the chicken don't know about what is Keller doing and I think if keller stand closerto the chicken the chicken conna run away from him so what you think about this but we have a different think but this is what i know about thisss but i have a little confuseeee but??????
B@be V@si
Clearly ya'll think about this waaaaaaaay too much. . .
But I think that since Keller is pointing to the left in the picture that must mean that he is going in that direction. So, if we are talking about who GOT there first, it has to be the chicken since he is farther on the left than Keller.
And if you include the stick in this question, there are clearly no trees around so one of two things could have happened. It either got there first because it traveled by wind (or someone brought it there). Or Keller brought it with him on his way to the Trans Rockies and set it down inbetween him and the chicken to confuse his viewers and make them believe that it has some kind of importance.
T*bird (Tia A.)
Post a Comment