Yes, I know a thread with the same title was just locked, but I hope this one will be more intelligent. I would like YOUR opinion, and an explanation of why you see it that way. I myself would have to say the chicken, because of evolution, it could have evolved from a different bird, so it wouldn't be an actual chicken egg, it would be a different species' egg, but the first chicken came from it.
The chicken species as we know it today hasn't been around as long as the egg has been utilized as a method of birthing young, dating back to the dinosaurs and jawless fish. So in a literal sense, the egg came first
The chicken species as we know it today hasn't been around as long as the egg has been utilized as a method of birthing young, dating back to the dinosaurs and jawless fish. So in a literal sense, the egg came first
Way to read the OP man. Or even the title. It specifically states "the chicken egg, or the chicken". Next time read what you are responding to so that your posts are actually relevant to the thread.
Surely the egg. Consider this, a chicken has several characteristics that define its being. For example, a chicken must have the complex collection of genes to form itself. One of these characteristics include being borne from an egg. If it was not then it wouldn't be classified as a chicken. Therefore, perhaps a genetic upthrow created the first chicken-like bird which in turn created the first chicken egg. Or perhaps an inter-species or inter-fowl relationship created the first egg from which a chicken arose.
It seems simple to me. The chicken is not a chicken unless it hatched from an egg.
I ate breakfast before lunch so the egg come first and the chicken later though some places serve chicken for breakfast I prefer the classic egg with some hot sauce and pepper B)
Surely the egg. Consider this, a chicken has several characteristics that define its being. For example, a chicken must have the complex collection of genes to form itself. One of these characteristics include being borne from an egg. If it was not then it wouldn't be classified as a chicken. Therefore, perhaps a genetic upthrow created the first chicken-like bird which in turn created the first chicken egg. Or perhaps an inter-species or inter-fowl relationship created the first egg from which a chicken arose.
What you are missing here is that if we can quantify the first chicken then the animal that laid the egg from which the chicken hatched would not have been a chicken, thus the chicken came first. One cannot have a chicken egg without a chicken to lay it. And, as was pointed out much earlier in this thread, scientist have already proven this. I see no point in debating any further something which already has been proven.
What you are missing here is that if we can quantify the first chicken then the animal that laid the egg from which the chicken hatched would not have been a chicken, thus the chicken came first
That doesn't quite make sense. If the first chicken came from the first egg that would mean that the egg came first. You can't call it a chicken unless it came from an egg. A chicken egg.
One cannot have a chicken egg without a chicken to lay it.
Do you mean this in the same sense that one cannot have a chicken without the egg first? If not then please explain.
And, as was pointed out much earlier in this thread, scientist have already proven this. I see no point in debating any further something which already has been proven.
The link shown actually pointed out that chickens have in their ovaries a protein which speeds up the production of the egg. Although I could not find any articles relating to ovocledidin-17 apart from the numerous news stories, many assertions remain that the protein is evident in numerous species. This provides insight into the many questions arising from the original one. Paying close attention to the sub-title 'Chicken Precision' in the article, it depends on what you classify as a chicken egg. That is, a chicken egg = an egg laid by a chicken or an egg which hatches said chicken.
Obviously you don't quite how evolution works. The egg which hatched the first chicken would have to have come from an animal that was not a chicken, hence the egg would have had come from, and had the properties of, an animal that was similar to a chicken, yet was not classifiable as a chicken. Hence the egg would not have been a "chicken egg" but a different type of egg from which a chicken hatched.
Quite a backhanded comment seeing as a mentioned both alternatives, take a look at that last sentence.
The egg which hatched the first chicken would have to have come from an animal that was not a chicken, hence the egg would have had come from, and had the properties of, an animal that was similar to a chicken, yet was not classifiable as a chicken
So where do the semantics end? For if I were to say that the chicken must come from an chicken egg to be classified as a chicken then the chicken egg must come first. You in turn will repeat that the chicken will have had to have laid the first chicken egg in order to birth the first chicken. Then I will state that that chicken was not a chicken unless it was born from a chicken egg. Please look at the link. It contains a nifty little diagram which should explain.
Quite a backhanded comment seeing as a mentioned both alternatives, take a look at that last sentence.
Actually it's not. You see, new traits are expressed in new organisms, not in the parent which birthed them. Therefor for us to consider the 'first' of a species we recognize that all others before it, no matter how similar, were not quite this particular species. To imply that something which is not a chicken could lay a "chicken egg" is preposterous if you have a solid understanding of evolutionary biology. It was not a "backhanded comment", it was an observation based on your position.
Also, I looked at your link and the 'diagram' contained therein and saw naught but a semantic argument based more on philosophical musings than real science. If we were to go by that same diagram then we could say definitively that chickens are just dinosaurs. Obviously in a sense they are, as they evolved from them, but they are clearly quite different. This is the same case with the "chicken egg". It's very similar to it's predecessors, but also quite unique. And scientists have found a protein unique to chicken eggs which is only made in chicken ovaries. Ergo the chicken would have to have evolved ovaries which produce said protein prior to any "chicken egg".
You see, new traits are expressed in new organisms, not in the parent which birthed them. Therefor for us to consider the 'first' of a species we recognize that all others before it, no matter how similar, were not quite this particular species. To imply that something which is not a chicken could lay a "chicken egg" is preposterous if you have a solid understanding of evolutionary biology
That was exactly the point of the diagram... So from what you are saying, I don't quite understand how your theory of evolution works. A new species or variance can only arise if it's predecessor has the exact same traits? Counterproductive? Double negative? Let's analyse that first paragraph and then you can tell me where I am misunderstanding. "Therefor for us to consider the 'first' of a species we recognize that all others before it, no matter how similar, were not quite this particular species." In this statement you seem to be saying that the new species or variances of each firsts are indeed different from their predecessors. Conversely you then state "To imply that something which is not a chicken could lay a "chicken egg" is preposterous if you have a solid understanding of evolutionary biology." So that is a complete backflip of your first point. If the species or variance before the chicken cannot change their genetic output then how does the species change?
Also, I looked at your link and the 'diagram' contained therein and saw naught but a semantic argument based more on philosophical musings than real science. If we were to go by that same diagram then we could say definitively that chickens are just dinosaurs. Obviously in a sense they are, as they evolved from them, but they are clearly quite different. This is the same case with the "chicken egg". It's very similar to it's predecessors, but also quite unique.
So what you are saying here is that the chicken egg is different to its predecessors? Wouldn't this back up my case that the chicken egg came first? Yes, chickens are different from dinosaurs. How do you think evolution works? A chicken doesn't simply spring forth from the loins of a dinosaur. It is a gradual process wherein over time certain advantages remain. Basically the egg is the start of the cycle of what it is to be a 'chicken'.
And scientists have found a protein unique to chicken eggs which is only made in chicken ovaries. Ergo the chicken would have to have evolved ovaries which produce said protein prior to any "chicken egg".
In this point you seem to be stating that the chicken first began and then started producing this protein. Perhaps the 'dinosaur' or 'the variance immediately before the chicken' had this same protein.
Feel free to correct any of my misunderstandings of your statements.
Seriously, you are making absolutely no sense to me.
So from what you are saying, I don't quite understand how your theory of evolution works. A new species or variance can only arise if it's predecessor has the exact same traits?
No. A new species arises when offspring express traits in a different manner than their parents. The parents do not have the same traits. Traits are a variance in the expression of the genes.
In this statement you seem to be saying that the new species or variances of each firsts are indeed different from their predecessors.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
So that is a complete backflip of your first point. If the species or variance before the chicken cannot change their genetic output then how does the species change?
No, it's not. Try reading it again. As was shown in the scientific studies, a "chicken egg" is unique from it's predecessors because of a unique protein involved in the formation of the shell. This protein is only manufactured in the ovaries of chickens. The first chicken was hatched from an egg which lacked this protein, ergo it was not a 'chicken egg' but the egg of the preceding species.
So what you are saying here is that the chicken egg is different to its predecessors? Wouldn't this back up my case that the chicken egg came first?
Again, no. Try reading the scientific paper relating to the proteins involved in the make up of the "chicken egg". You are trying to argue against science with philosophical and semantic arguments.
In this point you seem to be stating that the chicken first began and then started producing this protein. Perhaps the 'dinosaur' or 'the variance immediately before the chicken' had this same protein.
Nope, they didn't. Again, read the scientific papers. They clearly illustrate that this is protein is unique.
I'm going to bundle a lot of your responses into this next part.
No, it's not. Try reading it again. As was shown in the scientific studies, a "chicken egg" is unique from it's predecessors because of a unique protein involved in the formation of the shell. This protein is only manufactured in the ovaries of chickens. The first chicken was hatched from an egg which lacked this protein, ergo it was not a 'chicken egg' but the egg of the preceding species.
Again, no. Try reading the scientific paper relating to the proteins involved in the make up of the "chicken egg". You are trying to argue against science with philosophical and semantic arguments.
Nope, they didn't. Again, read the scientific papers. They clearly illustrate that this is protein is unique.
Ok. Actually I did read the scientific papers. That was the first thing I did. I usually research a topic extensively before I make a judgement upon it. It is called an informed decision. The protein which is known as ovocledidin-17 (I stated this earlier, should have shown that I read the mentioned article) could be evident in the species prior to the birth of the chicken. For the purpose of this argument referred to as 're-chicken'. The ovaries of the pre-chicken could have contained the ovocledidin-17 and used this to produce the first chicken egg. Could it not? Why must you assume that the chicken was existent and then it evolved it's abilities? When a new species or variance is created its characteristics are not reset.
I'm not even going to bother to reply to your other statements. It appears that you aren't reading the mass of my statements so I find it pointless to keep referring to your misunderstandings and hence my misunderstandings.
