OK but what did the first egg laying animal come out of.
Some non-egg laying animal gave birth to an egg laying animal due to a beneficial mutation. So the “chicken” (or rather, any egg laying animal) came first.
eggish
Everyone here seems to be missing the point of the question. The chicken isn’t the key point. It stands in for all egg laying animals. To rephrase the question: how is it possible that an early species was able to develop egg laying abilities, considering the problem of that animal not having been born from an egg? I suspect the real answer has something to do with fish …
The rooster came first
I’ve always interpreted this as more of a metaphorical question.
However, this general response is where I usually take things if pushed for an answer. Meaning, egg laying species existed for hundreds of millions of years before chickens and chickens evolved from egg laying species, so the egg came first.
A lot of people try to interpret this on the micro scale view: The idea that there was one specific event (place, time, individual) where a non-chicken laid the first egg that hatched out to became the first chicken.
The reality of the situation is counterintuitive, though. Life, nature, and even taxonomy are so much more complex that this situation. It can be hard to conceptualize, but there literally never was a case where a non-chicken laid an egg, and the resulting offspring was the first chicken ever.
The species concept really only applies on a population level (barring exceptions like cases where there’s literally only 1 known living individual remaining of a soon to be extinct species). And furthermore, taxonomy is an artificial, human concept – nature does not abide – and a bit of an art at that. Even if we could somehow scale back in time and view every individual in the chicken lineage as far back as we desire and in much detail as we desired, there would be no consensus on where in that mess chickens emerged from non-chickens.
So, this is one of those cases where I would actually advise – don’t think too hard about it or take it too seriously and accept the question for its metaphorical nature.
And there is evolution to take note of too. The chickens that were alive back then could look very different to the chickens we have today. We say the word “chicken”, and we think of the chickens that you see at farms, or sometimes in the wild, with no thought at all to the details. True, one could argue that chickens have not undergone any evolution, and were as they are today, but there are several flaws in that reasoning. First, every animal has been a certain way, but, as time passes and their environment changes, they must change as well. Here’s an example of natural selection, for those who are not as well versed in the matter of evolution.
Say there are white squirrels. They have lived there for hundreds of years, and therefore adapted to accommodate the forest. One day, a paper mill is built next to the forest where they reside, and spews pollution out. Over time, the trees of the forest, once elm white, are not soot black. The white squirrels are then hunted because they can no longer blend in with their environment. Soon, black squirrels are born. They can now blend in with the trees, and are killed less often. The white squirrels are hunted until there is no more left.
I fool-proofed the question…“Which came first, the egg of a chicken, or the chicken?”. And you can’t say they use eggs in dinosaur shaped pasta. /s
In that case the chicken came first, regardless of how we define “chicken”, we can reuse that definition for the first “chicken egg” it laid.
But how do we define a “chicken egg”? Is it an egg containing a chicken, or an egg that’s been laid by a chicken?
Good point. Now I’m less sure.
I guess any “egg containing a chicken” came first, by definition. I don’t think I would accept anything that didn’t come from an egg as my canonical first chicken, anyway.
Oh wow, this is much simpler explanation than the obtuse one I use: “1st chicken ever definitely came from an egg but the creature that laid that egg wasn’t a chicken.”
That depends on semantics.
Is a chicken egg an egg laid by a chicken, or an egg that hatches a chicken?
The answer to that question changes the answer to the original question
Who introduced “chicken egg”? The original question just says egg.
I don’t care. Just give me that yummy eggs Benedict from “The Commons Neighborhood Eatery”.
int 🐔 = 1.0;
int nonchicken = 0.0;
int 🥚 = 🥚 + n ;
while ( 🥚 < 🐔 ) , { nonchicken + n };
if ( nonchicken > 0.0 ) then { 🐔 = 1.0 };Don’t know if this will compile, but there should be an infinite number between 0 and 1, and ‘n’ should be the biological gap between species.
There should be one more line code to poll the value for the paradox, but I’m going to bed now.
Sounds legit. In my experience chickens are morons and have both a 1 in INT and WIS.
what language is this?
Eggs appear to have existed before we split from them, that’s why monotremes are a thing
Even if you’re talking about chicken eggs specifically it’s still the egg first. The first chicken egg would have been laid by a proto chicken
I don’t think It’s that clear, are eggs named by what created them, or what they contain? I could certainly see an argument that the first chicken hatched from a proto-chicken egg
Ok, but does it matter what it’s called? If it contains a modern chicken, and it’s an egg, whether it’s a chicken egg, or a proto chicken egg is debatable. But the egg definitely came first
Not if we are specifically asking about whether the chicken or the chicken egg came first (which is what the original comment in this chain implied), because if proto-chickens lay proto-chicken eggs and a chicken was hatched out of one, then the chicken came before the chicken egg
I always love to bring up that this boils down to an argument about definitions, given the assumption we’re talking about chicken eggs.
proto chicken
Bro chickens are already loaded with protein, what are you doing?
Ye but if you boost the protein you can sell it as a health food!
It’s preferable to Zergchicken, trust me.
I wasn’t scared before this, so I’m going to do exactly that
I feel like this kinda answer just shows you haven’t really thought about the problem in depth.
I feel like this kinda answer just shows you haven’t really thought about the problem in depth.
I feel like this kinda answer just shows you haven’t really thought about the problem in depth.
But is it a chicken egg because it hatches into a chicken or because it is laid by a chicken?
Because it hatches into a chicken, you’re thinking of a chicken’s egg
Wait, so is an unfertilized egg referred to as a chicken’s egg, and never a chicken egg?
“chicken’s egg” is the owner of the egg the chicken inside it, or the one who laid it?
Likewise it’s not clear that “chicken egg” refers to the creator of the egg or the inhabitant of it.Pretending for the sake of semantic argument that any of these scenarios were possible:
If an alligator laid an egg and a chicken came out, was that a chicken egg?
If a chicken laid an egg and an alligator came out, was that a chicken egg?But now consider, you know what I mean by the following phrase:
“An alligator laid a chicken egg, and an alligator hatched out of it”
It depends on which egg and which chicken you mean exactly.
Nothing.
A chicken egg came before the chicken because it is the same animal and the egg stage is earlier than the adult stage.
This is the best argument I’ve heard yet.
Someone could argue that the egg isn’t part of the animal, the “egg stage” just applies to when the animals was growing in the egg. But it’s a pretty difficult argument to make.
TIL the first chicken egg wasn’t laid by a chicken
Even that isn’t really clear in practice as I understand it. The genetic drift from proto chicken to chicken likely means that there is no single instance of proto chicken birthing chicken, even if you could fully sequence the DNA of every proto chicken. It’s kind of an inconvenient issue with DNA taxonomy, because if we really did have that full DNA history, there would likely be several different populations with overlapping genetics and we might actually choose to draw that line for a number of different mutation combinations when they start statistically creating certain traits, instead of a single mutation. But oh no now we are back to descriptive taxonomy so let’s just move on.
The reality is that we haven’t really observed speciation in a controlled setting, so the current framework almost requires us to sample the evolutionary timeline at long intervals, or it starts to get sloppy.
Proto-chicken>chicken>eschato-chicken
Chickens have “evolved” in recent years more than recent centuries
We just keep the chicken name but at what point do they become a different animal.
Evolution is slow and has no definite point in time of “First official example of a 2000s definition of a chicken”
It’s similar to the paradox of the heap.
Of course a “chicken” layed the first chicken egg. But if we called that “chicken” a chicken then her egg would be the first chicken egg. Not the one she just layed.
Yeah it’s an arbitrary line. Slow changes generation after generation, but where normally those changes balance out (a tall person is not much more likely to reproduce with tall people than short people), when a trait is advantageous/disadvantageous to survival or reproduction or encourages those with it to only reproduce with others with it sometimes it tilts the scales and slowly a proto deer/horse finds itself increasingly adapted to water to the point its leg bones become vestigial
The proto-chicken was a mutant Red Junglefowl. Just like a proto-dog was a mutant wolf.
You do not get a Red Junglefowl laying a 2000s definition of a chicken egg. You get a Red Junglefowl laying an egg with a mutation that that “Red Junglefowl” will pass on.
Every generation the Red Junglefowl becomes closer to the 2000s definition of a chicken.
It wasn’t a “mutant” in the sense that one Red Junglefowl was born to create the chicken egg what we know as a 2000s definition of a chicken.
Yeah, there’s never a hard dividing line between a species and its immediate predecessor. Merely a gradual chain of mutations that eventually results in distinct populations. If those populations can’t successfully interbreed even if transported to meet, they’re different species. The definitions for asexually reproducing organisms are even more fuzzy. This concept that taxonomy doesn’t have fixed divisions confuses a lot of anti-evolutionists.
All mutations are birthed by the unmutated.
Differently mutated
All animals are mutated, some are more mutated than others
*Magneto is typing*
allegedly
if you want something crazier, look into ring species. where different species of animals have all their in-between species still alive and mate with each other, but the ones at the extremes cant mate with each other
Yeah but like where did that chicken come from
This is why I say a much more interesting question is what came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?
It entirely depends on your definition of a chicken egg. Is a chicken egg an egg that hatches a chicken, or an egg that is laid by a chicken? If it is an egg that hatches a chicken then the chicken egg came first, but if it is an egg that is laid by a chicken then the chicken came first
If a chicken egg is an egg that hatches into a chicken, then unfertilized chicken eggs would not be chicken eggs. But if you took an alligator egg and transplanted a developing chicken embryo into it, that would become a chicken egg.
You’d get the heuristic “All chickens have hatched from chicken eggs”, which sounds pretty elegant.If a chicken egg is an egg laid by a chicken, then you couldn’t reliably say that a chicken egg hatches into a chicken - the heuristic from before would become “Not all chickens have hatched from chicken eggs”. And that one, while it feels a bit imprecise, might be closer to what we observe in reality, especially with that Proto-chicken argument. So the Proto-chicken would have laid a Proto-chicken egg, which hatched into a chicken, which laid chicken eggs.
And it would work with the current scientific hijinks like hatching chickens from different eggs or straight from test tubes.That’s a language-dependent ambiguity; this sort of “noun¹ noun²” construction in English is actually rather vague, and it can be used multiple ways:
- material - e.g. fish fillet (the fillet is made of fish)
- purpose - e.g. fish knife (the knife is made to handle fish)
- destination - e.g. fish food (the food goes to the fish)
- inalienable possession - e.g. fish tail (the tail belongs to the fish, and removing it means removing part of the fish)
- alienable possession - e.g. fish bowl (the bowl “belongs” to the fish, but you could give it another bowl)
- etc.
As such I believe that in at least some languages it’s probably clear if you refer to chicken egg as “an egg coming from a chicken” or “an egg a chicken is born from”. Not that they’re going to use it with this expression though.
For reference. @cuerdo@lemmy.world used as an example “my penis”:
If I say “my penis”, it is likelier that I am talking about the one attached to me rather than the one I bought in the market.
In Nahuatl both would be distinguished: you’d call your genitals “notepollo” (inalienable possession), and the one you bought “notepol” (alienable possession). (Note: “no-” for the first person. For someone else’s dick use “mo-” when speaking with the person, i- when talking about them.)
Just language things, I guess.
TIL I learned to refer to my penises (both of them) in Nahuatl, Thank you!!!
Relevant to note I don’t speak Nahuatl. I parsed this info from Wiktionary + Wikipedia, it’s surprisingly easy to follow.
(For the non-possessed form, as in “a penis is an organ”, use “tepolli” instead. Wiktionary also mentions “tototl” bird being used with that meaning, kind of like English “cock”.)
I will opt for the Minecraft spawn egg logic. The chicken spawn egg was first.
What came first, the oak tree or the acorn?
You cannot have a chicken without a chicken egg. And the egg comes first.
It’s the paradox of the heap
At some point the pre-chicken will lay a chicken egg and a chicken will be born
If I say “my penis”, it is likelier that I am talking about the one attached to me rather than the one I bought in the market.
I’ve always understood this debate as a veiled religious thing. Chicken = religion, god creates chickens; or Egg = science, animals are products of evolution, and thus naturally the egg must come first.
Idk who the ten people that upvoted this are but godamnit
Edit: if you can see these edits, and how much I can’t handle sentence structure, and you are god, and not an egg, pls forgive me
Daddy chicken did
