Chicken or the egg? SOLVED!

[Corvus Rex]

Blah blah blah Chicken.

Blah blah blah BLAH egg.

I can keep this up forever.

 

[TIG]

I love that this one blew up like I hoped it would.

So, our arguments come down to this...

Egg believers: we have science, and can pinpoint the theoretical spot that will show our side being right.
Chicken believers: *fingers in ears* I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU LA LA LA LA. Oh by the way look over here at my clever attempt at distraction and derailing of the conversation.

P.S. T minus 10 minutes till Tr1age clicks the disagree button on this post.

 

[tr1age]

Blah blah blah BLAH egg.

I can keep this up forever.

Lying? Not a good moral code.

 

[tr1age]

Chicken believers: *fingers in ears* I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU LA LA LA LA. Oh by the way look over here at my clever attempt at distraction and derailing of the conversation.

Boobs made an excellent case as to why Chicken is correct BTW if you could hear her through all that jiggle.

 

[TIG]

I had more trouble with her horrible accent. It's crazy how stupid she sounds with that broken english, yet the subject matter she talks about is so intelligent and fascinating. I have always loved the etymology of words.

 

[Red Omen]

Being sexy doesn't necessarily equate to being right.

 

[Waldemar]

Being sexy doesn't necessarily equate to being right.

You don't understand science, do you?

 

[Skywing]

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.

Or perhaps what lies in that "proto-chicken" egg was not a complete chicken DNA, so in that egg hatched an almost "chicken", but after it is born, some of its DNA mutates (perhaps to resist a certain disease) and afterward it becomes the first true chicken, and then lay eggs. Under this interpretation, the chicken comes first.

@Corvus,
You should notice that I am neither the chicken side nor the egg side. I simply point out the other side of the story. To look at things objectively, one should notice both sides of the argument.

 

[Corvus Rex]

Lying? Not a good moral code.

It is when it lets me touch boobs.

I had more trouble with her horrible accent. It's crazy how stupid she sounds with that broken english, yet the subject matter she talks about is so intelligent and fascinating. I have always loved the etymology of words.

She did actually have an interesting argument regarding the etymology, but this argument is already blasting down the rabbit hole full-speed without adding semantics.
/strip... heh... rabbit hole...

You don't understand science, do you?

This.

Or perhaps what lies in that "proto-chicken" egg was not a complete chicken DNA, so in that egg hatched an almost "chicken", but after it is born, some of its DNA mutates (perhaps to resist a certain disease) and afterward it becomes the first true chicken, and then lay eggs. Under this interpretation, the chicken comes first.

@Corvus,
You should notice that I am neither the chicken side nor the egg side. I simply point out the other side of the story. To look at things objectively, one should notice both sides of the argument.

That's true, and I always make an attempt to do so, but your argument requires DNA to act in a way that it simply doesn't. It is possible for DNA to mutate in a mature organism but it is not systemic; most often its the DNA of a single or handful of cells being mutated through damage caused by a virus, chemical or radiation. It doesn't mutate for the purpose of resisting a disease but rather random heritable mutation at some point in the past conferred some factor of resistance prior to being exposed to the disease. The necessary genetic reshuffling that can result in a "new species" can only occur at conception, or maybe shortly there after, but by the time the egg hatches the organism is long past the point where it could develop into a new species.

ITS THE EGG PEOPLE *tantrum*

 

[ToxicAsF]

I am a part of team egg. I stated this case at foxwoods. But now I have to play devil's advocate for this argument. I agree with the proto-chicken archtype. This was my original argument. BUT, now I have to bring up a thought that may alter my opinion... Maybe not. I'm not sure.

The proto-chicken lays the chicken egg, correct? This is the argument Team Egg has used? Well, what if.... The egg shell was still reminiscent of the proto-chicken. When does it constitute a part of the hatchling chicken, or still an extension of the proto-chicken? What we have here isn't a which came first, but actually WHO OWNS THE EGG SHELL. You could argue that since it started as a proto-chicken cell in the proto-chicken uterus, or after conception the male proto-chicken altered the egg cell into the final form of evolution, known as the chicken. With this thought process, the originating cell was proto chicken, then upon conception the egg evolves into the more commonly known chicken.

BUT WE'RE STILL LEFT WITH THE CONUNDRUM, DOES THE EGG SHELL belong to the proto, or the chicken? We can all agree the inside of the egg will be chicken. We can also agree that the parent is a proto chicken. The missing link is, is the egg shell proto, or non. If to be believed the shell is proto, then in fact, the chicken would actually be first. If believed the shell is chicken shell, then the egg would be first. Depending on view point, both sides now have an extra... legg.... to stand on!

 

[Diremongoose]

BUT WE'RE STILL LEFT WITH THE CONUNDRUM, DOES THE EGG SHELL belong to the proto, or the chicken? We can all agree the inside of the egg will be chicken. We can also agree that the parent is a proto chicken. The missing link is, is the egg shell proto, or non. If to be believed the shell is proto, then in fact, the chicken would actually be first. If believed the shell is chicken shell, then the egg would be first. Depending on view point, both sides now have an extra... legg.... to stand on!

Unfortunately that's still not a meaningful distinction because there is no missing link - even in the case you outline, both chicken and proto-chicken are technically the same species. We define species based on whether they can interbreed, and clearly the hypothetical 'proto-chicken' is the same species as its offspring. The concept of 'Species' are an artificial construct of humanity that breaks down over evolutionary time.

A certain offspring might have the first egg protein that defines it as a chicken, but is certain to differ from the modern chicken in any number of other ways. While that protein characteristic sounds all 'science-y' it is a massively arbitrary distinction, given that the proteins of the eggs of the previous generation were functionally identical, just very slighly different. The term 'chicken' is a much fuzzier historical concept than 'egg', as a chicken refers to the evolution of an animal that is a continuum through time, like all species. 'Egg' either as the 'chicken egg' or as the biological term 'ovum' have more definite origins.

Ultimately, the 'wriggle room' for the chicken camp makes the argument unwinnable for either side without first agreeing upon defined terms for 'egg' and 'chicken'. I think it's reasonable to argue for either side quite effectively within this wriggle room that has been established. For example: Chickens and proto-chickens are both the same species - chickens. Both species lay eggs, so somewhere along the line the (proto)chicken laid the first chicken egg - so therefore the case can be made that chicken came first. But I think we can all agree that the first egg ever was laid far before the first chicken.

Conclusion: Egg remains the the correct answer, but the Chicken Camp is not exactly wrong...
...Just stupid for not knowing WHY they weren't wrong

 

[Curtech]

We're not wrong because chicken.

 

[Diremongoose]

But you ARE wrong for making the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy.

 

[Razulian]

Uh oh this is getting out of hand... derailing time!

Spoiler

Blablabla: God created the chicken and the egg AT THE SAME TIME!

 

[Waldemar]

But I think we can all agree that the firstegg everwas laid far before the first chicken.

Agreed fine sir.

 

[tr1age]

Agreed fine sir.

God was an egg?

 

[Corvus Rex]

What blasphemy is this, Eggs saving face for Chickens?

THE CHICKENS ARE WRONG /fistshake

 

[Razulian]

Why don't you just give up! God created both at the same time! The chicken met the egg and they both vowed to each other that they'd be partners forever!

 

[Diremongoose]

God was an egg?

I see no evidence suggesting God did NOT hatch out of a giant chicken egg.

 

[Curtech]