what came first the chicken or the egg?

[blackhole123]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/

 

Duh. I could have told them that.

[Phi for All]

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.

[Kyle]

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.

[AzurePhoenix]

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?

[swansont]

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.

[Kyle]

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.

[AzurePhoenix]

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.

[Phi for All]

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.

[Peels]

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."

[Sisyphus]

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...

[Dr. Dalek]

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!

[Phi for All]

What came first the chicken or the egg? There is no right answer for it[/b'], no matter what you choose!

The rooster.

[Peels]

The rooster.

 

At least, this doesn't make any less sense than choosing either the egg or the chicken.

[AzurePhoenix]

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.

[swansont]

The rooster.

 

True. If he didn't come first, the egg wouldn't be fertile.

[Edtharan]

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."

[CanadaAotS]

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.

[GutZ]

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.

[swansont]

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)

[Phi for All]

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.

[herme3]

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?

[Skye]

They give birth to immature young that are reliant on their mothers for a long time. Like people.

[Steph]

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?

[scientistsahai]

If God created earth:-) and all life forms that existed...... then the Chicken came first!!

lol .... God does'nt lay eggs ......

[JohnB]

They give birth to immature young that are reliant on their mothers for a long time.

Great. Instant teenagers.