What's the evolutionary advantage of....

.... laying eggs? Seems like it is better to keep the embryos in a safe place, inside the mother.

Eggs are delicious.

>>2
Enjoy your cholesterol, faggot.

More offspring. Eggs can be laid in millions(fish eggs).

I'm sure most of you already know this, but the oval shape of eggs is what prevents them from rolling out of the nest. I remember reading about some weird bird that builds its nest on the ground and lays shitloads of circular eggs.

Not sure, but I would have to speculate that it's for two reasons:

1. An egg has everything it needs in terms of nutrition and protection from the elements. A mammal inside the mother requires that the mother be less willing to take risks at the cost of losing or injuring the unborn offspring. Not to mention the mother needs more food to support the developing child, which conflicts with the fact that she physically can't hunt as often.

2. Reptiles, birds, amphibians, and fish lay eggs (undoubtedly forgetting some.) These are all creatures who are early in the evolutionary chain from being water dwelling creatures to partial land/water dwellers to full land dwellers. I think that the environment in this transitionary period (which was over many many years of course) must have selectively favored creatures capable of laying eggs. Possibly a climate reason? Maybe a predatorial one? I mean for birds laying eggs up in trees makes sense. It's really difficult for most predators to climb a tree to consume the eggs. Maybe other animals during this time period just became quite well adapated towards hiding their eggs.

Come to think of it.. it actually does make sense. Why carry offspring within you when your average life expectancy is so short? You would be better served to lay a mass of eggs and to hide them so that your gene pool could live on regardless of your own survival.

Stupid question, the first reproductive cycles that had (what you could concievably call) sexual reproduction required an egg and a sperm, the easiest way to do this was to squirt it all into one sticky mess, ie reproduction without the fun shit (some aquatic life still does this.)

Eventually natural selection favoured species who could fertalize their eggs before they were laid as this increased the chances of fertalization. Next step natural selection favoured species that were able to evolve hard shells as this helped protect the developing young. From there it wasn't long before mammals started giving live birth, the advantages there were obvious, concious young who weren't sitting ducks without mommy around.

Case fucking closed.

"2. Reptiles, birds, amphibians, and fish lay eggs (undoubtedly forgetting some.) These are all creatures who are early in the evolutionary chain from being water dwelling creatures to partial land/water dwellers to full land dwellers. I think that the environment in this transitionary period (which was over many many years of course) must have selectively favored creatures capable of laying eggs. Possibly a climate reason? Maybe a predatorial one? I mean for birds laying eggs up in trees makes sense. It's really difficult for most predators to climb a tree to consume the eggs. Maybe other animals during this time period just became quite well adapated towards hiding their eggs."

Your looking at it the wrong way, live birth evolved from egg layers, thats why Everything and i mean everything that isn't a mammal lays eggs (except bacteria et. al.) the precise measurement of "many many years ago" evolution favoured live birth, before that it favoured any motherfucker that could replicate sexually (more genetic diversity than asexual reproduction) and before that any fool that could replicate full stop.

The play's the thing
Wherein we'll catch the Ding-a-Ling of the king.