Separate names with a comma.
Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.
Discussion in 'The Pub' started by pete777, Jan 11, 2009.
while on the subject of chicken. in your opinion what was first and what is better...
Chicken or Egg?
A proto-chicken (but NOT a chicken 100%) popped out an egg, and within that egg was a fully fledged chicken*. The egg, however belonged to a proto-chicken, hence, the egg was not a (100%) chicken egg. Inside the egg was the very first 100% chicken.
* some people claim that becasue a chicken is inside the egg, that its a chicken egg. Wrong, even if you had x-ray vision. The egg is from the proto-chicken, NOT from a chicken which is becoming a chicken :!: - its illogical.
So, in other words:
The chicken came from a proto-chicken egg. Its not a chicken egg, but a proto-chicken egg!. Hence, the chicken came first.
Its a very fine line between proto and 100%. Its the reason that many people start to reach for the bottle...
and that's what I'll do. Ah bourbon!!!.
The chicken, of course. Have you ever heard any "Why did the EGG cross the road?" jokes???
Which came first? The rooster :-w
Depends if by egg you simply mean a hard shelled thing that creatures gestate in, which case, most definitely the "egg" came first. The question did not specify a "chicken egg", just an "egg".
In response to T.Depta's consideration of a "chicken egg", we must assume here that the egg as a structure carries some genetic material that marks it specifically as being a chicken. However, an egg in reality is just a chitinous shell that is otherwise free of DNA, but inside it has DNA material that through genetic variation will give birth to our first "100% chicken". ie. The proto-chicken would have had to have laid an egg that is indistinguishable from a 100% chicken egg before the chicken foetus even started to develop within that egg, so once again, the egg came first. The proto-chicken MUST have laid a 100% chicken egg for a 100% chicken to emerge from that egg, because the outside chitinous shell by itself doesn't define the chicken that will emerge, and the chicken that is born will go on to lay an egg exactly like the one that it emerged from.
So... you're saying, that a bird creature and a velociraptor could have mated at some point creating the now know chicken?
i think flux was trying to say, thankfully evolution got rid of this annoying question
Wrong. Random mutations of the proto-chicken fetus during gestation is what turn it into a 100%chicken. Not before. It those mutations did not occur, you would get just another proto-chicken from a proto-chicken egg.
Its the same as what i wrote in the wikipedia (when less sober than what i an now!).
Your quote is very vague. You have a new animal type yet are saying that it will make the same eggs as it parent. That cannot be correct becuase the 100chicken is a new animal, thus different from its parent. To say its eggs will be same is a leap of faith.
I'm not even tired yet!
Usually only one mutation happens at a time, and makes a miniscule change that is then selected to increase in the gene pool because it increases probability of survival and breeding. Mutation may also occur due to changes to the DNA in the egg (ovum, female DNA only) or sperm before conception, as well as inside the egg (brekky food variety) after conception.
And therefore your 'proto-chicken' would have been 99.9999999999999% indistinguishable from an actual chicken - and in fact would have been closer to it genetically than the various breeds of chickens we have today to one another.
So are humans born with mutations still not classed as humans?
I think the change from one species to another was made through more than one generation... not suddenly one day a new species arrives in a single egg
EDIT: Bravus beat me to it AND expressed it more scientifically lol
i think you guys are getting too hung up on the chicken and proto-chicken labelling. what you describe as a chicken are a group of creatures on a particular genetic road of a certain width. the road being the fact that they can only breed with creatures of close enough genetic heritage, the width of the road being the extent of the diversity and the distance of the road being how far its diverged from a common ancestor.....
....if you catch my analogy
try explaining that one to kirk cameron. funny vids aplenty of that guy on youtube
Not wrong mate. You're just too stubborn to even consider the point.
Unless the chitinous egg structure itself changes, then the proto-chicken's egg is indistinguishable from the egg that the chicken will go on to lay. The DNA material inside the egg structure is what defines the 100% pure chicken. It's wrapped in an egg. Ergo, the egg always comes first.
The ONLY time your point would be correct would be if the very final genetic mutation that defines a 100% pure chicken was that of the formation of the 100% pure-chicken chitinous egg structure with the DNA mutation of the foetal chicken.
Think about it....rather than just stating "wrong".
there are clear differences between eggs of different species though eg. Emu egg - Crocodile egg - Chicken egg
but yeah the egg was around long before the chicken
Oh, now its getting interesting.
If the egg came first, then why do we have egg-less births in other genotypes?
An animal MUST first lay the egg. The egg cannot appear first since you have the fundamental problem of what semi-biological process could have made an egg to start off a new species? You do NOT need an egg reproduce. That only came about since the risk to young, or quantity to reproduce, to reduce limited movement liability EVOLVED with certain lifeforms.
Yeah, call me stubborn if you want. Its not the first time i have debated this. And i know it won't be the last since there are some that:
"...just too stubborn to even consider the point."
T.Depta, you're now just redefining the problem quite separately to what you originally stated, and don't think we haven't noticed. You started off talking about proto-chickens, now you're talking about pre-chicken animals and whether or not an egg came first, or the animal.
The answer is quite simple there. The egg, as a structure, predates the classifical definition of a chicken.
yeah but you were talking about chickens not 'life' altogether
besides we all know aliens created life on Earth lol
i expected you to say they got created at the same time as per his mighty hand
the egg came first - theory of evolution
I beg to differ