Menu
By:
Filters
What's new

Chicken or the egg? SOLVED!

What came first the chicken or the egg?

  • Chicken

    Votes: 11 42.3%

  • Egg

    Votes: 15 57.7%
  • Total voters
    26
original.0


I agree on the egg theory because mutation causes evolution. There couldn't be a chicken before if you believe in evolution at least. Unless of course you believe in Unicorns in which Unicorns aren't born they just come into existence by wishes of little children :D

Which is how I got my Unicorn! ^^
 
HA! This validates my "The egg came first. Because SCIENCE!" argument from that drunken Saturday night bus ride at the Foxwoods meet-up on so many levels. Awesome internet-find, Mike!
 
Kismet said:
I said Chicken, but only because eggs are 'reproductive', so don't you need something to 'produce' the egg before it can exist? That was my logic! LOL
Click to expand...

You've forced my hand...
*Puts on biologist hat*
Let us be venture back to THE FIRST ANCESTRAL CELL...this hypothetical entity did NOT have eggs, it reproduced parthenogenetically, that is without sex. It just split itself into two cells, each of which did their own really boring thing. Several billion years of random mutation and evolution later, a cell finds itself with the ability to transfer DNA to another cell through its cytoplasm...the first 'sex' of sorts. Many more billions of years later and we have multi cellular creatures, still producing egg-less copies of themselves. Finally the ovum/sperm is evolved (think primative fish eggs), fulfilling the need for advanced genetic recombination to better adapt to the changing conditions of the world. Where is the proto-chicken? Way forward in the future, you know, after spinal columns have been evolved.

Moving to a slightly different argument, saying the proto-chicken is a chicken is a slippery slope. When do you draw the line? How far back can you go? To when chickens-anscrstors had reptile scales? Fish scales? To when chickens shared a common anscestor with US? Stopping at the proto-chicken is an inherently reasonable place to be, as distinguished by the modern chicken egg-protein coming into existence and providing a point of destinction.

TL;DR
The biologist hat is on, there is no TL;DR. Peer-reviewed references can be made available on request.
 
1) This video got posted because of Foxwoods didn't it?
2) Team Egg is correct.
3) *Puts on biologist hat* parthenogenesis is (roughly) self-impregnation and requires the ability to develop a new organism within the confines of a "parent" organism without the influence of a second "parent" organism. The splitting of one cell into two is a form of asexual reproduction, in the case of the first cells, it was probably something like the binary fission seen in modern day bacteria and archaea.
4) DAMMIT TRISTAN THE EGG CAME FIRST LET IT GO.
 
The flaw here is that the etymology of the word egg goes back to the word bird, not chicken. Other types of birds were around before the chicken so just like the proto-chicken argument the word egg followed back through history came before the chicken.
 
That video didn't solve anything. The question was whether the chicken comes from the "chicken egg" or other way around. Then it goes on to assume that the "proto-chicken egg" is a chicken egg but it forgets to mention that a proto-chicken is also a chicken, and we are back to square one.
 
The video defines the "proto-chicken" as a creature very similar to a chicken (but not a chicken). Basically it's an attempt to draw a line where the evolution from "not-a-chicken" to "chicken" took place in order to determine the origin of the thing, for which there is no absolute 'cause it (along with all other animals) is the result of many mutations over a long period of time, and as stated in the video no single mutation can really constitute a new species.

Science didn't invent boobs. Magic and Love did.
Click to expand...

Magic and love make boobs awesome, but did not create them.
 
Then a "proto-chicken egg" which a chicken might hatch from is not a "chicken egg" (because a proto-chicken is not a chicken), hence the chicken comes first in the chain in contrary to what the video concludes. Sure the chicken might come from an egg but not a chicken egg but that doesn't answer the question whether the chicken or the "chicken egg" comes first. That's why I said we are still at square one.
 
The hen came first...

On another note:
If we didn't have boobs (as in females) then we wouldn't be able to reproduce. If the ancient humans didn't reproduce then the smarter-than-average-people wouldn't have come to existence, those smarter humans thought scientifically. Therefore boobs triggered the existense of the nerdy science guy.
Thus: BOOBS FOR THE WIN!!!
 
Skywing said:
Then a "proto-chicken egg" which a chicken might hatch from is not a "chicken egg" (because a proto-chicken is not a chicken), hence the chicken comes first in the chain in contrary to what the video concludes. Sure the chicken might come from an egg but not a chicken egg but that doesn't answer the question whether the chicken or the "chicken egg" comes first. That's why I said we are still at square one.
Click to expand...
For arguments sake, if the emergence of a species can be given a definitive point in the evolutionary line as a final set of mutations particular to one generation which is absent in the previous, then the important factor is the DNA itself. The DNA of the parent is "not-chicken" whereas the DNA of the offspring is "chicken." Under this interpretation the "chicken" DNA is present first within the embryo contained within the egg. (While this embryo is technically a chicken, the "chicken or the egg" question is specifically referring to an egg and an adult chicken.) Presumably there has not been enough genetic mutation since this point to warrant the emergence of a new species by the guidelines laid out above, as such this egg is identical to those laid by the chicken that hatched from it and so on. Therefore, while it was an egg laid by a "proto-chicken" it was in fact a chicken egg.

The egg came first.
 
Corvus Rex said:
For arguments sake, if the emergence of a species can be given a definitive point in the evolutionary line as a final set of mutations particular to one generation which is absent in the previous, then the important factor is the DNA itself. The DNA of the parent is "not-chicken" whereas the DNA of the offspring is "chicken." Under this interpretation the "chicken" DNA is present first within the embryo contained within the egg. (While this embryo is technically a chicken, the "chicken or the egg" question is specifically referring to an egg and an adult chicken.) Presumably there has not been enough genetic mutation since this point to warrant the emergence of a new species by the guidelines laid out above, as such this egg is identical to those laid by the chicken that hatched from it and so on. Therefore, while it was an egg laid by a "proto-chicken" it was in fact a chicken egg.

The egg came first.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah Chicken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom