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

yes a strengthening. A more common use of certain genes due to environmental requirements can lead to the gene becoming more prominent in the species. IE making the animal run faster than ever before, making the animal shorter or taller than ever before, thus creating a new species or sub species.

The evolution of a chicken would have taken many centuries for it to be what we consider a modern day chicken.

Not that your arguement has no merit, I can agree that the chicken might have been created through genetic mutation, and cannot otherwise disprove it. But, if the chicken evolved from the red jungle fowl(as it is thought to have done) then genetic mutation is not as likely(to me) as mere genetic strengthening and dominance.

So, as you can see, though there are two simple solutions(yours and my own), the answer to the question is not as simple as one would think. It depends on how exactly on person thinks the chicken became what it is today, and how likely they think the other explanation to be.

That's the first time I've ever heard of this gene strengthening, and it's completely contrary to Darwin's theories. I would have thought I'd have heard of something as significant as that!

So hopefully now, you can all understand why the question is not as simp[le as it may seem. decide which explanation you feel better suits yourself, and try to build on that

No, I just think you haven't a clue what you're talking about and are making up some pseudo-scientific rubbish.

There is no way a chicken evolved, for evolution to be true would be denying the second law of thermodynamics, everything wears down over time. If a "chicken" came from a certian lizard than the same type of DNA would have to come through and create another "chicken" to mate with, otherwise the "chicken" would not be able to pass on it's DNA, if you take a reptile, and find all the differences between birds and reptiles you will find that the "mutations" needed would put the offspring in a vunerable state where it would not be "the fit" IE newly developed feathers would have to offer some protection that scales used to, Pneumatic bones? how could they get from solid to pneumatic? the requirements for the evolution to occur would be much to long, the newly developed "bird" would be vunerable to attack from many directions. Therefore the chicken was created and has been for about 5000+- a few years.

If it is so unlikely, how come all biologists are convinced it is true?

It is simply this pyrex, the arguement is not that a chicken evolved directly from a lizrd, but from a similar species of bird. If you like, you can all look it up, but the common day chicken is thought to have evolved from the red jungle fowl (as I previously stated). If you believe me to be "talking out of my ass" as it were, then you would be gravely mistaken.

http://www.centralpets.com/pages/critterpages/birds/wild_birds/WBD4315.shtml

http://www.feathersite.com/Poultry/NDG/BRKRedJF.html

Please refer to either of these sites if you are to doubt my veracity, the first has more information than the second, and the second has some pictures in which you can see some similarities between the birds there...as long as you know what the modern day chicken looks like

>>"But, if the chicken evolved from the red jungle fowl(as it is thought to have done) then genetic mutation is not as likely(to me) as mere genetic strengthening and dominance."

That's the bit where you are "talking out of your ass", to use your own words.

I think quite a few people are getting ideas confused in this debate, so I'm going to try and clarify things a little:

Evolution, 'Survival of the fittest', 'Strengthening', and speciation (creation of new species) are all different things. Evolution can refer to any change in the heritable characteristics of a population, and as a definition includes all the other concepts mentioned.

'Survival of the fittest' is purely the mechanism by which natural selection occurs. Within any population there is a variation in the ability of individuals to survive and reproduce. Generally those with higher ability to survive will produce the next generation.

By 'Strengthening', I assume Someguy means an increase in the frequency of a particular gene within the population. This is the same concept as 'survival of the fittest', and does NOT directly lead to new species. As such, it is not contrary to Darwin's theories, it is simply unusual terminology for a Darwinian concept.

Speciation generally occurs when two populations become seperated. Mutation and natural selection will tend to cause a genetic divergence of the two groups, eventually to a point where the two can no longer interbreed to produce viable offspring. At this point the two groups are considered seperate species.

The important point is that a single mutation does not create a new species, it simply adds to the genetic variation within a population.


Pyrex: The second law of thermodynamics has very little to do with evolution. It states that the disorder of the UNIVERSE must always increase. It is very common for this to occur by a reduction in disorder of a particular system, along with an increase in the disorder of the surroundings (usually in the form of an increase in temperature). Thus it is not necessary for individual reactions to always increase their own disorder. You can see this in biochemical reactions in all organisms, and it has been shown that given the right conditions, the basic chemical units needed for life can be spontaneously created from simpler compounds. These could then form self-replicating molecules and evolve, leading to life as we see it today.

Someguy's argument about the gradual evolution of the chicken is correct. It is possible to evolve gradually from a lizard to a chicken, via many intermediate stages, all giving a slight advantage. (As an example, feathers could have initially developed as a thermal insulation mechanism similar to mammalian hairs, and later been modified into a form suitable for flight.)

Finally, Pyrex, even if your argument against evolution were correct and logically sound, it is quite a large, unsubstantiated jump to say 'Therefore the chicken was created'. I could just as well say 'a monkey once took a piece of wood and carved it into a functional chicken' with the same logical certainty!

Sorry to rant, but I felt this whole conversation needed some clarification.


Lastly, re the chicken and egg question: The answer is purely a matter of definition. Assuming that 'egg' in the question means 'chicken egg'
(otherwise the egg obviously came first), the question is then simply a question of how to define 'chicken egg':

If a chicken egg is one laid by a chicken, then the chicken came first.
If a chicken egg is one that hatches to give a chicken, then the egg came first.

Thanks for that Gfehard! It is very well explained.

well all i have to say is poop. I was sort of hoping no one would clarify my explanation as of yet, since I wanted to do it myself later, but I'm glad to hear that someone understands my arguement without having first had my full explanation.

Very good Gjefahrd.


And finally, egg is defined by parent, not child. If a chicken lays an egg which for some reason fails to hatch, it is no less a chicken egg than the ones which hatch, producing chicks.
It's a simple matter of the english language to define a chicken egg, the egg is named after that which lays it, not by that which it hatches into. Chickens lay chicken eggs. If it were named by that which it hatches into, we would have chick eggs, as it is not a chicken until it reaches it's maturity.

Oh, sorry for explaining for you, Someguy!

I think I disagree with you about the definition of egg. A chick is still a type of chicken, so it is fair to call an egg that hatches into a chick a chicken egg. Also, the egg is the first stage in the life history of one individual organism, and as such I think it is best defined as the egg of that individual, not the parent. (Consider a hypothetical hybrid between two different birds - would you define it as the egg of the mother species, the father, or the hybrid which hatches from it?)

Anyway, as I said, the answer is a matter of definition, which is always going to be a matter of opinion. I can't say you're wrong, but I can respectfully disagree with your opinion!

If an egg is the type of the individual that it produces, what kind of egg is an infertile one?

I don't know enough about the exact mechanisms of birds' eggs to answer that precisely. Assuming that an infertile egg is simply an egg which has not been fertilised, then it cannot be regarded as an individual organism since it can't grow once it has been laid. Its species is that of the parent (if the idea of species can apply in this situation), simply because it cannot grow to form its own species, even if it happens to carry mutations which would allow it to do so.

That's a good question, though, and shows that there are problems with defining the egg in either of the two possible ways. As I said, my opinion is that it's defined by the hatchling, but I can understand why others might disagree.

now for another few points....

we'll see how well I can think today as I'm quite tired...

Although I understand the arguement that the egg could be defined by the offspring, I must point out a simple fact. If a chicken lays an egg, we call it a chicken egg, as we cannnot say "that egg will not hatch into a chicken". This I think is where we run into our little problem.
you cannot determine the type of egg from the hybrid either. The egg must be defined by both parent and offspring. If it is laid by a chicken, it goes to reason that it must (in some part at least) be a chicken egg. If however, it produces offspring which is not a chick, it must therefore (in some part) not be a chicken egg.
the egg must be surrounded by that which it is named for, parent and offspring.

tell me how lucid that sounds...???

Quite a good point! I still think it should be defined by the offspring alone though, staying with my previous argument that it's the same individual. I'd say that for an unhatched egg, we call it a chicken egg as a best guess, or working definition, but not as a precise scientific definition of the egg, which can be made once it hatches.

The whole thing becomes hypothetical anyway when you look at the way species are really formed. It is very rare for a new, reproductively-isolated species to be formed in one generation, and therefore incredibly unlikely that two will form to actually breed and start a population. The usual method of speciation is separation of two groups, followed by a slow genetic drift in both which leaves them unable to interbreed when they become mixed again. In this situation, you can see that there is no definite time at which you can define the two as different species, and without a definite time it is impossible to say whether egg or chicken came first.

That fact means that the entire chicken/egg question is undefined and meaningless. I do find it useful to have a quick answer ready, though, if anyone ever asks the question rhetorically...

"That fact means that the entire chicken/egg question is undefined and meaningless. I do find it useful to have a quick answer ready, though, if anyone ever asks the question rhetorically..." very well put, I have to agree whole heartedly.
I've always thought the same thing. I find it useful to have both answer prepared however
The hypothetical elements to the question exist within both answers, but I do however believe that surrounding the hypothetical egg with the new species is essential.

As I understand it, the egg would actually be named after what comes out of it. If a person miraculously had a cow, it would be called a cow baby, not a person baby. If something is called a quail egg, I expect to see a quail come out of it. Incidentally, the simple solution has turned into a debate almost as endless as the original.

Personally, I agree with the ProtoChicken theory, and have annoying people for years with this answer. It seems to me to be the most likely answer, but only it is indeed specified as a chicken egg. If people really want an insoluble problem, then perhaps 'What came first, the flowers or the bees?' as both require the other to procreate.

There was a discussion on this on Irish radio. A vet pointed out that scientists complicate the matter by using the same word for two different things: the unfertilized egg and the fertilized egg are really two entirely different things, but they are both called egg.