PensivePenny wrote:I've been raising chickens for a few years....

Chickens are domesticated. They were bred by humans from the red junglefowl and possibly hybridized with another breed of bird.

This is common today. The breed of chicken most often found in US markets doesn't reproduce well. It is a hybrid male of one specific breed with a female of another breed. <edit: the eggs from this pairing are the Cornish cross rock breed>

So, it is likely, that the chicken came into existence as the result of hybridization.... A red junglefowl hen was the first bird to lay a chicken egg....

That's a simplified version of how they probably came to be, but it at least supports the notion put forth by others that the egg came first.

I'm just on pins and needles, here, waiting for someone to ask, "Which came first, the mammal or the placenta?"

Oops. Too late.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Animavore wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
Sorry, you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick, because, (A) you have not specified a specfic chicken and its specific offspring, and (B), I have already implied that there may not be a discernible difference in any case, and that it is only for argument's sake. Get it? Or do you genuinely believe that the chicken changes its own genome before laying an egg?!

(A) Any chicken chosen would be arbitrary.
(B) If there's no discernible difference then they are both chickens. There would be no feature that would preclude one from the other without choosing an arbitrary mutation with which to say, "Here is the breaking off point". Which leads back to A.

I see you're still completely missing the point of the thread, which was that genetic change appears in the egg before the chicken that hatches from it. Simple, really.

Explain to me how the OP can possibly miss the point of the thread?

OK, he worded it badly, so that he evidently didn't mean what he said. The OP question in his interpretation does not even have an answer. I merely found an interpretation that did allow an answer.

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Animavore wrote:
(A) Any chicken chosen would be arbitrary.
(B) If there's no discernible difference then they are both chickens. There would be no feature that would preclude one from the other without choosing an arbitrary mutation with which to say, "Here is the breaking off point". Which leads back to A.

I see you're still completely missing the point of the thread, which was that genetic change appears in the egg before the chicken that hatches from it. Simple, really.

Explain to me how the OP can possibly miss the point of the thread?

OK, he worded it badly, so that he evidently didn't mean what he said. The OP question in his interpretation does not even have an answer. I merely found an interpretation that did allow an answer.

It does have an answer. The answer is that neither the chicken nor the egg came 'first'.
Your 'answer' depends on arbitrarily choosing the first chicken based on some mutation or other which you haven't even said which.

Animavore wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
I see you're still completely missing the point of the thread, which was that genetic change appears in the egg before the chicken that hatches from it. Simple, really.

Explain to me how the OP can possibly miss the point of the thread?

OK, he worded it badly, so that he evidently didn't mean what he said. The OP question in his interpretation does not even have an answer. I merely found an interpretation that did allow an answer.

It does have an answer. The answer is that neither the chicken nor the egg came 'first'.
Your 'answer' depends on arbitrarily choosing the first chicken based on some mutation or other which you haven't even said which.

In my interpretation, it didn't matter, as I was responding only to the question in the title, and assuming that there was a yes or no answer. I think I have previously made it clear that I agree with there being no answer if you take it the way you evidently meant it in the full text.

Animavore wrote:...
So there's no first chicken, and we can't say there was a first chicken egg either because looking at photos of the egg stretching back won't help you any more than looking at the chicken, so surely that answer is that neither came first, because there was no first of either?


Am I right?

No matter how gradual the evolution of the phenotype was, the egg had to come before the chicken that hatched from it. The small changes ALWAYS exist in the egg before they show in the chicken. So what if the time difference is trivial incomparison with evolutionary time-scales - it's still non-zero.

There is no egg. There's an eggshell with an embryonic chicken developing inside it. If you just have an egg, make an omelet.

Whatever laid that egg, if it wasn't a chicken, then there's no possibility of chicken until that egg is fertilized. I don't know how pre-chickens get it on, but fuck they had to, and they were probably really close to being chickens.

In other newsworthy questions, how many grains of sand make a pile?

Cito di Pense wrote:There is no egg. There's an eggshell with an embryonic chicken developing inside it. If you just have an egg, make an omelet.

Splitting hairs.

Whatever laid that egg, if it wasn't a chicken, then there's no possibility of chicken until that egg is fertilized. I don't know how pre-chickens get it on, but fuck they had to, and they were probably really close to being chickens.

...

Absolutely, but if we're to regard the entire biota as consisting of more than one species with a huge range of variation within it, then we have to make some arbitrary cut-offs between them, when considering transitions.

EDIT: Having said that, there are probably many examples of genetic gradualism leading to phenotypic non-gradualism - the so-called "hopeful monsters". For example, a mutated HOX gene can have a strong effect on the phenotype (such as the number and position of limbs, etc).

DavidMcC wrote:
Absolutely, but if we're to regard the entire biota as consisting of more than one species with a huge range of variation within it, then we have to make some arbitrary cut-offs between them, when considering transitions.

EDIT: Having said that, there are probably many examples of genetic gradualism leading to phenotypic non-gradualism - the so-called "hopeful monsters". For example, a mutated HOX gene can have a strong effect on the phenotype (such as the number and position of limbs, etc).

But that's not where the chicken-egg question is aimed, either. People who can't proceed until they can pet and cuddle the transitional form are called 'creationists'. The chicken-egg question is not about population genetics, and we're not interested in individuals who can't survive in the wild to adulthood and reproductive capacity. Unless you want to get into eugenics.

LucidFlight wrote:

The_Piper wrote:So there is no wrong answer, but if you're asking me it's the egg. Because even if the mutation was in the parent of the first chicken and not the first chicken itself, the first chicken's parent was born from an egg too.

Now, what about the egg the parent (aka "first chicken") came from? Was it a chicken egg or pre-chicken egg? Or am I thinking too much about this during my coffee break? Is the question asking about if a "chicken egg" came first or just any old egg? Because, if "first chicken" came from a pre-chicken, surely the egg itself would be of a pre-chicken; that is, "first chicken" came from a pre-chicken egg. So, to sum up: "first chicken" came from a pre-chicken egg, and then the first chicken egg came from "first chicken". I'm so wired right now.

ETA

Just to be clear: in the above, highly-philosophical scenario, the chicken came first.

Sorry for the late reply, I had to do more research. Just kidding, I didn't see your reply.
I disagree. I agree with the op that's there's probably no real first chicken, but if we had to pick one bird in the line of descendants, to finally put this question to rest, then that first chicken that we picked would have been born from an egg. Because the bird that we picked is a chicken, then the egg it was born from was a chicken egg, even if a non-chicken laid it. It was a chicken egg because it contained a future chicken. Next question. I guess I can pick one out of; "how many grains of sand in a pile" and "what came first the mammal or placenta". Hmm, I think during birth that the baby mammals pop out before the placenta does?
Piling grains for sand, hmm, theoretically, if we had very tiny robotic tools we could probably make a pile out of 5, depending on your definition of pile. It could take up to 117 medium=sized grains to satisfy the pickiest definitions.

I think the smallest amount of grains for a pile would have to be two, one on top of the other. I don't that question is as deep as those who are blown away by seemingly profound statements like to think.

Animavore wrote:I think the smallest amount of grains for a pile would have to be two, one on top of the other. I don't that question is as deep as those who are blown away by seemingly profound statements like to think.

It depends on whether you assume the grains are cubes, like sodium chloride or spheres, like basketballs. If they're dodecahedra, approximate them by spheres. You can pile up your basketballs however you see fit, but take your time.

Cito di Pense wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
Absolutely, but if we're to regard the entire biota as consisting of more than one species with a huge range of variation within it, then we have to make some arbitrary cut-offs between them, when considering transitions.

EDIT: Having said that, there are probably many examples of genetic gradualism leading to phenotypic non-gradualism - the so-called "hopeful monsters". For example, a mutated HOX gene can have a strong effect on the phenotype (such as the number and position of limbs, etc).

But that's not where the chicken-egg question is aimed, either. People who can't proceed until they can pet and cuddle the transitional form are called 'creationists'. The chicken-egg question is not about population genetics, and we're not interested in individuals who can't survive in the wild to adulthood and reproductive capacity. Unless you want to get into eugenics.

Like I said to Animavore, I was speaking to the simplest form of the chicken and egg question (in which the egg comes first, because it has the genes of the chicken that is to hatch from it), not the version he described in the OP text, in which he fudges the issue, by arguing that there is too small a difference to notice, so it might as well be zero.

DavidMcC wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
Absolutely, but if we're to regard the entire biota as consisting of more than one species with a huge range of variation within it, then we have to make some arbitrary cut-offs between them, when considering transitions.

EDIT: Having said that, there are probably many examples of genetic gradualism leading to phenotypic non-gradualism - the so-called "hopeful monsters". For example, a mutated HOX gene can have a strong effect on the phenotype (such as the number and position of limbs, etc).

But that's not where the chicken-egg question is aimed, either. People who can't proceed until they can pet and cuddle the transitional form are called 'creationists'. The chicken-egg question is not about population genetics, and we're not interested in individuals who can't survive in the wild to adulthood and reproductive capacity. Unless you want to get into eugenics.

Like I said to Animavore, I was speaking to the simplest form of the chicken and egg question (in which the egg comes first, because it has the genes of the chicken that is to hatch from it), not the version he described in the OP text, in which he fudges the issue, by arguing that there is too small a difference to notice, so it might as well be zero.

Asked and answered.

Cito di Pense wrote:There is no egg. There's an eggshell with an embryonic chicken developing inside it. If you just have an egg, make an omelet.

If you want to call that an egg, It's probably pointless to argue with you about it, and you should just declare yourself BDFL.

Cito di Pense wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
Absolutely, but if we're to regard the entire biota as consisting of more than one species with a huge range of variation within it, then we have to make some arbitrary cut-offs between them, when considering transitions.

EDIT: Having said that, there are probably many examples of genetic gradualism leading to phenotypic non-gradualism - the so-called "hopeful monsters". For example, a mutated HOX gene can have a strong effect on the phenotype (such as the number and position of limbs, etc).

But that's not where the chicken-egg question is aimed, either. People who can't proceed until they can pet and cuddle the transitional form are called 'creationists'. The chicken-egg question is not about population genetics, and we're not interested in individuals who can't survive in the wild to adulthood and reproductive capacity. Unless you want to get into eugenics.

Like I said to Animavore, I was speaking to the simplest form of the chicken and egg question (in which the egg comes first, because it has the genes of the chicken that is to hatch from it), not the version he described in the OP text, in which he fudges the issue, by arguing that there is too small a difference to notice, so it might as well be zero.

Asked and answered.

Cito di Pense wrote:There is no egg. There's an eggshell with an embryonic chicken developing inside it. If you just have an egg, make an omelet.

If you want to call that an egg, It's probably pointless to argue with you about it, and you should just declare yourself BDFL.

...

Ha, ha! You must know as well as I do, that the "egg" in the well-known phrase "chicken and egg situation" is generally taken include the shell, because it's something that the chicken lays, rather than the early stage of ovum development inside the hen.

Assholes predate chickens and eggs. And mouths for that matter.

Once upon a time, it was all assholes.

On reflection - there hasn't been much progress over the last 3 billion years.

Sendraks wrote:Assholes predate chickens and eggs. And mouths for that matter.

Once upon a time, it was all assholes.

On reflection - there hasn't been much progress over the last 3 billion years.

That may well be so, Sendraks, but it looks to me like a subject for a different thread.

DavidMcC wrote:
Ha, ha! You must know as well as I do, that the "egg" in the well-known phrase "chicken and egg situation" is generally taken include the shell, because it's something that the chicken lays, rather than the early stage of ovum development inside the hen.

I know, but if it's not a fertilized egg, you can sit there and look at it for as long as you want, and still get no chicken. If it's a fertilized egg, then it's an eggshell containing a developing chicken embryo. The chicken-egg problem is that whatever is going to hatch from that egg is going to differ in some way from whatever laid the egg, and that's why the first chicken had to be a chicken instead of an egg. It says so right on the label. You could always hedge and say that the first chicken was both a chicken and its ancestor, but that sounds kind of ridiculous, doesn't it?

Cito di Pense wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
Ha, ha! You must know as well as I do, that the "egg" in the well-known phrase "chicken and egg situation" is generally taken include the shell, because it's something that the chicken lays, rather than the early stage of ovum development inside the hen.

I know, but if it's not a fertilized egg, you can sit there and look at it for as long as you want, and still get no chicken.

You're a genius, Cito!

If it's a fertilized egg, then it's an eggshell containing a developing chicken embryo. The chicken-egg problem is that whatever is going to hatch from that egg is going to differ in some way from whatever laid the egg, and that's why the first chicken had to be a chicken instead of an egg.
...

That's not the whole truth, Cito. The genetics of it tell us that the genes in the hatched chicken are the same genes contained in the egg from which it hatched, but not quite the same as the genes in the chicken that laid the egg in the first place.

DavidMcC wrote:The genetics of it tell us that the genes in the hatched chicken are the same genes contained in the egg from which it hatched, but not quite the same as the genes in the chicken that laid the egg in the first place.

And why is that, David? Perhaps you've studied the biology of sexual reproduction, at least, you know, theoretically. How much of the genetic material in the zygote is contributed by the male? About half, would you say?

You're right: When it hatches, it's still a chicken. What you need to get a chicken from something that's not a chicken is a breeding population of organisms with genetic drift. Not a population of eggs undergoing genetic drift, because, uh, that isn't happening.

In common parlance (from where the ""chicken and egg" phrase comes), Cito, evolutionary theory is irrelevant. What matters is that chickens hatch out of eggs, and the egg contains the same genes aas that chicken.
I'm beginning to think that you are just trying to drive me nuts with nit-picking and deliberate misinterpretations.