blackhole123 Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/ Duh. I could have told them that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 I've always thought the "thing" that layed the first chicken egg was not *quite* a chicken itself, therefore the egg came first. Maybe not always, but before this article came out in May, at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Isn't that explanation kind of obvious? From an evolutionary perspective it's always been pretty much decided as the egg - at least I thought so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Wells that's the biggest waste of brain power ever. And aye Kyle, anyone who's ever applied evolutionary thought for half a second has figured that out. My question is whether they're right to lay it on evolution rather than artificial selection. I mean, do we really consider the natural counterpart and ancester to the domestic chicken a chicken itself? Or does that technicality matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 I've always thought the "thing" that layed the first chicken egg was not *quite* a chicken itself, therefore the egg came first. Maybe not always, but before this article came out in May, at least. Hybridization aside, there's no sharp distinction that would let you make that assessment. Offspring are the same species as their parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Wouldn't it be extremely unlikely for two chickens (or what we today would call chickens) to be born near each other at the same time? It's not like a bunch of nearly chickens had a bunch of chickens and from then on it was all chickens. It took a long time to stabilize into what we call the species today. One egg that has something with chicken DNA in it doesn't get you anywhere close to a whole new, stable species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Wouldn't it be extremely unlikely for two chickens (or what we today would call chickens) to be born near each other at the same time? It's not like a bunch of nearly chickens had a bunch of chickens and from then on it was all chickens. It took a long time to stabilize into what we call the species today. One egg that has something with chicken DNA in it doesn't get you anywhere close to a whole new' date=' stable species.[/quote'] Sort of... there are plenty of threads around that'll explain all the details, but it is certainly all very gradual, and their isn't a sharp single-generation border between two species they way some people assume; like Swansont poitned out But then again, a chicken is generally regarded as being the domesticated variation of the Red Jungle Fowl, which is not called a chicken (though most people probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference). That domestication thing quickens and sort of clarifies the issue in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Hybridization aside, there's no sharp distinction that would let you make that assessment. Offspring are the same species as their parents.Definitely no *sharp* distinction, but the original question asks us to point to a line of ancestry and mark the spot where proto-chicken ends and the closest thing to the chickens we now know begins. That beginning, though nebulous, would have to be an egg since an individual doesn't evolve within it's lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peels Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 What came first the chicken or the egg? There is no right answer for it, no matter what you choose! It doesn't make sense to define the one came out of the egg as a chicken, but the one laid the egg as non-chicken. I agree with Swansont: "there's no sharp distinction that would let you make that assessment." and also agree with AzurePhoenix: "that's the biggest waste of brain power ever." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 If you want to be a smartass, just point out that there were things laying eggs long, long before there was anything resembling a chicken. Not chicken eggs, maybe, but the question doesn't specify... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dalek Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 I've always thought the "thing" that layed the first chicken egg was not *quite* a chicken itself, therefore the egg came first. Maybe not always, but before this article came out in May, at least. I've been saying the same thing for eleven years now, and no one believes ME! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 What came first the chicken or the egg? There is no right answer for it[/b'], no matter what you choose! The rooster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peels Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 The rooster. At least, this doesn't make any less sense than choosing either the egg or the chicken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 I've been saying the same thing for eleven years now, and no one believes ME!Aye, my family would just tell me to stop being so "eccentric." Clueless morons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 The rooster. True. If he didn't come first, the egg wouldn't be fertile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edtharan Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 This remindes me of a joke: Ther is an egg and a chicken lieing in a bed. The chicken has a depressed look on its face and the egg has a satisfied grin. The egg turns to the chicken and says "Well, that answers that question." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaAotS Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 LMAO nice joke. I think there's another version that has the rooster in it... lol And its obvious that, only dna evolves (and eggs are the start of a dna line) so the egg came first. There was the ancestor of the chicken laying eggs before it eventually evolved into the chicken. and the first organism that we would classify as a chicken, came from the not-so-chicken chicken egg lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GutZ Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 I've always defended the chicken because I count the first mutated survivor to be the first, to you know pass on "it's" mutated genes. If your counting from the very first instance that change is noticable though...well then...the egg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 This remindes me of a joke:Ther is an egg and a chicken lieing in a bed. The chicken has a depressed look on its face and the egg has a satisfied grin. The egg turns to the chicken and says "Well' date=' that answers that question."[/quote'] There's this (and this) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 There's this (and this[/url']) Great stuff. You should post some in The Official Jokes thread, at least until we get an official cartoon thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herme3 Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 I was reading the part of the article that says: If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg. I thought that part of the article was very funny... Do kangaroos even lay eggs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 They give birth to immature young that are reliant on their mothers for a long time. Like people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steph Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 But then again' date=' a chicken is generally regarded as being the domesticated variation of the Red Jungle Fowl, which is [i']not[/i] called a chicken (though most people probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference). That domestication thing quickens and sort of clarifies the issue in my mind. In that particular case... wouldn't it depend whether or not the first chicken farmer abducted a fowl, or simply stole eggs that he kept for himself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scientistsahai Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 If God created earth:-) and all life forms that existed...... then the Chicken came first!! lol .... God does'nt lay eggs ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 They give birth to immature young that are reliant on their mothers for a long time. Great. Instant teenagers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now