The chicken or the egg?

a reply to: Astyanax

Please read my entire reply as it contradicts your argument that the egg came first? Technically every higher life form on the planet "lays" eggs humans and others just do it internally.

originally posted by: Daavin
a reply to: Astyanax

Please read my entire reply as it contradicts your argument that the egg came first? Technically every higher life form on the planet "lays" eggs humans and others just do it internally.

The egg carries the genetic mutation that gave rise to the modern chicken. Hence, the egg came first.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Diderot and DISRAELI: what would you say is the complete, biologically exact definition of 'chicken'?

The problem of defnition only makes it difficult to identify WHEN the first chicken(s) appeared in the world.
It doesn't alter the fact that there was a transition somewhere between "no chickens" and "chickens", even if we can't put our finger on where it takes place.

a reply to: PrebelShotme
Dear Prebel, I hate to disagree, but I don't believe that there was ever a global simultaneous hatching or birthing of any species. To narrow it down, perhaps a cataclysmic event such as the one that triggered the demise of dinosaurs could have led to massive changes, but I doubt that it leads to the emergence of the chicken as we know it.

There are metamorphosis in insects, fishes, toads and frogs .. but in proto birds really ? What ever creature laid the egg which hatched into chicken ( i doubt it was any insect, fish or toad ) was a non chicken and therefor the egg came first.

a reply to: dollukka

But the egg being a dna construct from the animal that laid it which was not yet a chicken trumps the egg because the egg does not exist without the evolution of the species that laid it to allow the development of the chicken. I agree though the egg.

Just like hammerhead sharks. It wasn't just one the species that mutated into it simultaneously was evolving. Like a mushroom.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Well said, but recall my second post about the question itself, are we assuming "the egg" is defined as egg or as chicken egg? If by definition it is simply egg then your logic is corrects and i will agree the egg came first, but if defined as chicken egg then logically only a chicken can lay a chicken egg therefore the chicken came first. By posing the question in a vague manner one can easily make true both sides of the argument.

a reply to: Daavin

By taking your post literal if we are to assume only a chicken can lay a chicken egg. I have to ask what ocean did the chickens arrive on land from? Or perhaps what planet?

a reply to: PrebelShotme

Ok, let me try to explain what I'm getting at a little better.
Proto-chicken lays proto-chicken egg that mutates into chicken, the egg itself is defined as proto-chicken egg not chicken egg, therefore if in the question we define "egg" as a chicken's egg not a "proto-chicken's egg" then the chicken must come first in order to produce a "chicken's egg" , but if we define "egg" as simply "egg" then the egg can come first. That is what I am trying to convey that the question is too vague in it's definition of egg therefore both answers to the question can be true.

a reply to: Daavin

There we go

a reply to: PrebelShotme

Sometimes I have a hard time translating what's going on in this brain of mine. Lol

a reply to: Daavin

Well for any technical thinkers who joined the conversation without catching up we helped them fully grasp what we were saying here. So no errors here.

In continually asking the question, "Which came first?", one glaring alternative is often ignored:

What if they came at the same time? (Giggity)

This is what the Buddhist principle of Dependent Origination implies:

Another point worthy of note is that the dependent origination of these links does not have the same meaning as 'to be caused by' as such. The determinants which make a tree grow, for instance, include not just the seed, but also the soil, moisture, fertilizer, air temperature and so on. These are all 'determinants.' Moreover, being a determinant does not necessarily imply any sequential order in time. For instance, in the example of the tree, the various determinants, such as moisture, temperature, soil and so on, must exist together, not sequentially, for the tree to benefit. Moreover, some kinds of determinants are interdependent, each conditioning the existence of the other, as, for example, an egg is a condition for a chicken, while a chicken is a condition for an egg.

a reply to: Daavin
Dear Daavin, I think that I agree with you, except that I may disagree with you. The question is where the genetic change occurred. Is there anyone that does not agree that the change occurs in the egg? The egg is the first appearance of chickenness (if you will). Can we not agree that the only genetic change occurs between the adult chicken and the egg.
Therefore the egg carries the new genetic material. Therefore: mother-proto-chicken, and egg-chicken. Furthermore, can we agree that chickenness is an arbritary distinction?

a reply to: Diderot

Depends on what you mean by "egg".

- I believe the zygote (the reproductive cell) developed some 500 million years (give or take)

- Amniotes (hard shelled eggs) appeared about 300 million years ago

- Birds start appearing 65 - 53 million years ago

- Phasianids first appear approximately 30 million years ago

- Man domesticates the Red Junglefowl Gallus Gallus approximately 6000 years ago in China

So depending on what you mean when you say "egg", the egg predates the domesticated chicken by either 500 million or 300 million years.

originally posted by: Daavin
a reply to: AfterInfinity

Well said, but recall my second post about the question itself, are we assuming "the egg" is defined as egg or as chicken egg? If by definition it is simply egg then your logic is corrects and i will agree the egg came first, but if defined as chicken egg then logically only a chicken can lay a chicken egg therefore the chicken came first. By posing the question in a vague manner one can easily make true both sides of the argument.

That's what I call "splitting hairs", which serves no purpose other than to complicate the matter more than is strictly necessary.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Dear ROTSON, Point well taken, but my point simply concerns the genetic change from on generation to the next. How would you describe the genetic definition of a chicken compared to a proto-chicken? I can't imagine your definition entailing 500 million years. Is there not some point where we can agree that a proto- becomes a chicken? If not, what the heck is chicken?

a reply to: Diderot

Asking for that delineation on any species evolutionary development kind of misses the point. There are so many iterations during any evolutionary change, with certain traits disappearing and reappearing, becoming dominant or recessive, in diverse populations / groups over thousands or hundreds of thousands of generations.

It's a bit like sitting in a car with an infinitely variable gearbox and asking "So whats the gear in between 100kmh & 120 kmh?"

I knew you weren't really asking about the "chicken and egg" problem. It's just that it's so often asked and really, when you think about it, and break it down literally and technically, there is a clear answer to that question (though it is never the question the person posing it is really asking).

Genetically, a domesticated chicken is virtually identical to a Red Junglefowl from which it was selectively bred. Speculating about the immediate predecessors to the Red Junglefowl is kind of nebulous and difficult to pin down, and any point of demarcation has a lot to do with your definitions and ultimately is in the end, completely arbitrary.

a reply to: DISRAELI

The problem of defnition only makes it difficult to identify WHEN the first chicken(s) appeared in the world.

No, th problem of definition makes it impossible to say 'this is a chicken' and 'this is a proto-chicken'. The division between species is not as rigid as some would like.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Dear Rotson, Hello again, my Aussie friend. I tried to follow your logic, but I found that it was just a bit down under
(sorry! couldn't help myself!)( By the way I saw an awesome Aussie flick on HBO last night. Did I say awesome? Anyway, mate, it was awesome!, ...enough pandering) OK, Anyway I don't know what a Red Junglefowl is, but I am guessing that it is not identical to the first chicken. Let's agree that the very first chicken way back when stated as an egg and that its parents were not exactly chickens (they were proto-chickens!). What say you? G'day!