h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The problem is thus, many people try to define the point at which a chicken was a chicken. It can't honestly be done, but can only be vaguely theorized. Therefore, I would not argue from the proto chicken standpoint.

You must answer one question before you can answer which came first:

What, in fact, is a chicken egg?


A chicken egg is an egg which comes from a chicken and hatches into a chick. If it does not come from a chicken, it is not considered a chicken egg, and likewise, if it hatches not into a chick, it is also not a chicken egg.

Therefore, the chicken must come first.

I disagree. You are assuming that the child must be the same as the parent. By this reasoning, the chicken egg must come from a chicken and produce a chicken. But in fact the first chicken was formed by mutation from something that was not quite a chicken. This process occurred at the fertilisation stage. So the not-quite-chicken hen produced an egg but as it was fertilised, it turned into something different. Because it hatched into a chicken, it is reasonable to assume it was a chicken egg, and in fact it was identical to the egg that the chicken later layed. But the 1st chicken egg was different from anything the not-quite-chicken had ever produced before, so it is not reasonable to call it a not-quite-chicken egg.

The chicken came first, GOD created the chicken, though you may not understand why it will all be clear in the end.

Somehow, I don't think so!

The chicken may or may not have come into being as a result of God's wishes, but God certainly didn't create the chicken out of nothing. There's enough evidence around to prove that.

"The chicken is an invention of the egg to perpetuate himself"

The question also is: Which one is older, egg or chicken. Who holds the copyrights for the egg?

Eggs are definetly the older concept, invented by some fish before we didn't even think about settling land, so they were there first.

... But, of course, chickens disagree.

HELL

There are really two questions here:

Which came first, the general-purpose egg or the chicken? To the answer is the egg. It beat the chicken by many million years.

Which came first, the chicken-egg or the chicken? The answer to this is also the egg, but the reasons are more subtle, involving an understanding of mutation and when it occurs.

Then again.... Who does the egg belong to? The parents or the child. Suppose you get the very first egg from which a chicken will come out. (You don't know the parents are protochickens and you don't know what will come out of the egg - so, you have no idea who the parents were, and as the egg shell does not contain any information about the parents, like DNA and so, what is this egg? There is no way you could find out. But then a chicken comes out. What would you say the egg is? A chicken egg or a protochicken egg...

This is going far. I think there is no difference between a chicken and a protochicken egg. So egg first, but as I said: Chickens might disagree.

HELL

When buying unfertlized eggs (say at your grocer), the type of egg is determined not by the offspring (of which there is none) but by the type of parent.

Chickens produce chicken-eggs, which may or may not grow into a chicken or mutated chicken. Ducks produce duck eggs.

OK, so that's the end of the story.

Chickens may disagree, as usual.

HELL

But if a laid an egg that became a chicken why dosnt the chicken lay the egg that becomes a lagomorph?

"Posted By: Gnomon [Venice entry finally on Front Page! (in Recently Updated list)]


I disagree. You are assuming that the child must be the same as the parent. By this reasoning, the chicken egg must come from a chicken and produce a chicken. But in fact the first chicken was formed by mutation from something that was not quite a chicken. This process occurred at the fertilisation stage. So the not-quite-chicken hen produced an egg but as it was fertilised, it turned into something different. Because it hatched into a chicken, it is reasonable to assume it was a chicken egg, and in fact it was identical to the egg that the chicken later layed. But the 1st chicken egg was different from anything the not-quite-chicken had ever produced before, so it is not reasonable to call it a not-quite-chicken egg. "


To argue that mutation only occurs within the egg stage is not possible as you have no proof that it does, but there is proof otherwise. Mutation can occur due to many factors. The chicken could have evolved simply from environmental changes or requirements (survival of the fittest). The modern chicken is thought to have evolved from red jungle fowl. If it is fowl, it is already a bird, so not much evolution is required (in comparison to it evolving from a reptile directly). This species is your "proto-chicken".
My arguement is that you cannot be sure it is in fact a chicken egg unless it came from a modern day chicken and produced a modern day chicken. If a modern day chicken was produced, it proves nothing, as that modern day chicken could then lay an egg which in turn produces something with different genetic code than the original. There could concievably be genetic regresions, making the offspring not that of a chicken. And, in the case of survival of the fittest, the environmental requirements for its survival could also change, producing a new species of "proto-chicken".

Until one can be sure of no genetic alterations from parent to child, one cannot be sure that it is in fact a chicken or not.

You seem to have some strange idea that the environment causes animals to evolve into new species. In fact, mutations occur, normally at the point where the single cell's DNA is being formed from the DNA of its two parents. If it is a helpful mutation, it is a new type of animal. If not, it dies, sooner or later.

Well, I did't want to get fully involved in *this* discussion but... Environment *does* cause mutations: Irradiate my balls and chances are a fully functional, yet three-eyed homo sapiens comes out. It might even happen his or her children, too, have three eyes. It is possible that having three eyes even increases their chances to mate - y'know, these children of today - and one day, voilá, you have another species, just because someone was living too close to a nuclear reactor. This is of course not realistic but it might happen.

It is also possible that the proto-chicken layed her eggs with perfectly copied DNA close to a natural source of Neptunium, and for some reason the radiation knocked out one gene in the formed egg - so the legs might still be perfect genetic 'proto-chicken' but the testicles might not. Improbable, but not categorically forbidden.

H

"Posted By: Gnomon


You seem to have some strange idea that the environment causes animals to evolve into new species. In fact, mutations occur, normally at the point where the single cell's DNA is being formed from the DNA of its two parents. If it is a helpful mutation, it is a new type of animal. If not, it dies, sooner or later."

Apparently you know not of survival of the fittest(environment creating new species...) Survival of the fittest is not technically genetic mutation. It is Genetic dominance. It provides a new subtype of a species, not an entirely new species. For example Lion and gazelle. Lion chases the gazelle and one starts lagging from the pack. this is the one the lion eats. The gazelle which run faster stay alive. The gene making the gazelle run faster than the gazelle which was eaten is passed down to the next generation, making generations (on average) faster.
In the case of the chicken, we can argue this and say that there quite possibly could have been more than one factor which caused the chicken to evolve into what it is today. Not to mutate. The mutation would have occured earlier, as the chicken is descendant of the red jungle fowl.

I know about Survival of the Fittest. That's how some chickens survive and some don't. But the striving to run faster doesn't produce the mutation. The mutation that makes a new species occurs randomly and later it turns out to help the animal run faster. So the new species is formed at conception, not running on the plains.

My arguement was not that there was utation per say. my arguement was that a chicken evolved from a bird over many generations. Not a mutation of the genes, but a mere strengthening of genes to create a new species.

My arguement was not that there was mutation per say. my arguement was that a chicken evolved from a bird over many generations. Not a mutation of the genes, but a mere strengthening of genes to create a new species.

sorry, clicked the button twice on that last one

Strengthening?