Which Came First, The Chicken Or The Egg?

Dabeer

10th May 2008 - 03:11 PM

During a recent discussion with my brother in law about evolution, an interesting point was brought up.

Due to the mechanics of random mutation and Natural Selection, the answer to this age old question must be that the Egg came first.

After all, some thing that was almost a chicken, but not quite a chicken, would have had to experience some mutation that modified its genes into those for what we now know of as the chicken. This creature would have then either a)laid an egg containing that mutation, or

fertilized an egg to contain that mutation. That egg would then have developed into the world's first chicken.

Maybe this should have gone into the Evolution & Creation forum. Oh well

Bloy

10th May 2008 - 03:49 PM

First of all, what does "not quite a chicken" mean.
Second, what of NOT laying the an egg at all and fertilizing it externally.

You are making a giant leap of virtually infinite mutations as the evolving process unfolded.

From what I gather, while trying to understand your "not quite", you are implying that there was a creature that in one mutation "laid the egg" and simultaneously another creature made one mutation to provide the fertilization before the egg could be laid.

look at all lifeforms that regenerate themselves in uncountable various ways... I think you must go WAY back to simple organisms replicating themselves. Though those oraganisms would probably differ greatly from our present observable reproductive systems. ..again..

P.S. comments made are nothing more than "off-the-cuff".

El_Machinae

10th May 2008 - 04:33 PM

There's a bit of room for semantic play: is a "Chicken Egg" an egg that contains a chicken, or an egg that is laid from a chicken?

Dabeer

10th May 2008 - 10:12 PM

QUOTE (Bloy+)

First of all, what does "not quite a chicken" mean.

Proto-chicken, obviously

QUOTE (Bloy+)

Second, what of NOT laying the an egg at all and fertilizing it externally.

If the egg is not laid at all, how is it fertilized externally? Until it's laid, it's internal to the hen. If it's external, then it has, by definition, been laid.

QUOTE (Bloy+)

You are making a giant leap of virtually infinite mutations as the evolving process unfolded.

I would argue the "infinite" part, but yes, there is a huge leap here from the pre-chicken lizard form to the recognizable bird form.

QUOTE (Bloy+)

From what I gather, while trying to understand your "not quite", you are implying that there was a creature that in one mutation "laid the egg" and simultaneously another creature made one mutation to provide the fertilization before the egg could be laid.

I'm suggesting that two proto-chickens, i.e. one gene separated from what we currently recognize as a chicken, mate. As it happens, one of those proto-chickens has had it's reproductive organs subjected to a burst of radiation, and one of the sperm or ova has had one of it's genes mutated to what we now know as a chicken. Through random luck, that specific sperm or ova participates in this mating process, and becomes part of the egg that is laid.

I made this post simply to stimulate thought and some fun discussion, obviously there is some significant oversimplification of the process of evolution here

kjw

10th May 2008 - 10:33 PM

a rather simplified version...

fish lay eggs
reptiles evolved from fish
reptiles lay eggs
chickens evolved from reptiles
chickens lay eggs

the egg came first then the chicken

Confused2

10th May 2008 - 10:51 PM

If one imagines that the first 'life' could do no more than grow and then divide to produce (smaller) identical copies of itself :-

Clearly the copies (offspring?) would be competing for the same resources .. it would be advantageous for the 'mother' to retain control of the (obviously) 'good' environment and produce many offspring which do not directly compete but which might find another suitable environment .. hence chicken and egg. Given more time I might find some reason for sex .. but I'm rather tired right now.

-C2.

Edit .. hence lay eggs (it's very late

)

kjw

10th May 2008 - 11:02 PM

QUOTE

El_Machinae Posted: Today at 2:33 AM There's a bit of room for semantic play: is a "Chicken Egg" an egg that contains a chicken, or an egg that is laid from a chicken?

well that deserves a positive

Dabeer

10th May 2008 - 11:43 PM

QUOTE (El_Machinae+May 10 2008, 12:33 PM)

There's a bit of room for semantic play: is a "Chicken Egg" an egg that contains a chicken, or an egg that is laid from a chicken?

I thought about this a bit more while going to get dinner... and this is actually a lot more than just a good joke...

At first glance the original question seems to refer to an egg containing a chicken, else the chicken would not have come after, and that the egg was laid by a chicken...

But in my interpretation, I have a non-chicken (proto-chicken, the evolutionary predecessor to the modern chicken) laying an egg containing a chicken. Is the egg I refer to, therefore, the same egg referred to by the original question? What about a chicken laying an egg that contains the next evolutionary step? Same egg?

Or does an "egg containing a chicken but laid by a non-chicken" or an "egg laid by a chicken but containing a non-chicken" violate the constraints of the original question? If this is the case, then the answer becomes that the chicken came first, for only a chicken could lay an egg meeting the requirements of the riddle.

Clearly, I have way too much time on my hands.

Sinister Utopia

11th May 2008 - 01:12 AM

QUOTE (El_Machinae+May 10 2008, 04:33 PM)

There's a bit of room for semantic play: is a "Chicken Egg" an egg that contains a chicken, or an egg that is laid from a chicken?

Yes, that is the problem when attempting to answer these types of riddles, the question is often not clear enough.

Eggs obviously precede Chicken's, however the first Chicken egg was laid by the first Chicken.

What type of eggs would be the first thing to ask in response to this question.

Nice one El_Machinae

kjw

11th May 2008 - 02:56 AM

QUOTE

Sinister Utopia Posted: Today at 11:12 AM Eggs obviously precede Chicken's, however the first Chicken egg was laid by the first Chicken.

i thought genetics works a bit different. an egg laid by a particular animal may have a random genetic mutation that may cause the taxonomic classification of the offspring to split from the parents, for example the evolutionary split of Neornithes into Galloanserae (fowl) and Neoaves (other birds)

It is generally agreed that the Neornithes evolved in the Cretaceous Period and that the split between the Galloanserae (fowl) and the other Neognathae occurred before the K-T extinction event, but there are different opinions about whether the radiation of the remaining neognathes occurred before or after the extinction of the other dinosaurs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neornithes

the point is, in the sense of taxonomical classification, the first chicken egg, does not necessarily have to be laid by a chicken

Bloy

11th May 2008 - 03:42 AM

QUOTE (Dabeer+May 10 2008, 04:12 PM)

I made this post simply to stimulate thought and some fun discussion, obviously there is some significant oversimplification of the process of evolution here

QUOTE (Dabeer+)

Clearly, I have way too much time on my hands.

....not much time here as I momentarily log on, but yes, I thought so! ....to both..er all three counts.

Dabeer

11th May 2008 - 03:43 AM

QUOTE (kjw+May 10 2008, 10:56 PM)

the point is, in the sense of taxonomical classification, the first chicken egg, does not necessarily have to be laid by a chicken

But is it really a "chicken egg" if it's not laid by a chicken? Or does the fact that it contains a chicken make it a "chicken egg"?

What if a chicken lays an egg with the evolutionary successor to the chicken? Is it a chicken egg?

What if the egg contains the mutation, but is never fertilized? What if I fry it and it eat? Did I commit xenocide?

kjw

11th May 2008 - 07:16 AM

QUOTE

Dabeer Posted: Today at 1:43 PM But is it really a "chicken egg" if it's not laid by a chicken? Or does the fact that it contains a chicken make it a "chicken egg"?

well said. i will correct this by stating

the point is, in the sense of taxonomical classification, the first chicken, does not necessarily have to be laid by a chicken

Dabeer

11th May 2008 - 01:09 PM

QUOTE (kjw+May 11 2008, 03:16 AM)

well said. i will correct this by stating

the point is, in the sense of taxonomical classification, the first chicken, does not necessarily have to be laid by a chicken

I agree completely, and that was the reasoning behind my answer to the riddle. The egg containing the first chicken must have been laid by a non-chicken, my mythical "proto-chicken".

However, El-Machinae posted an excellent thought point, which I have taken to heart and made part of this discussion.

The original riddle does not specify that the egg be a "chicken egg". Clearly, then, the answer is "the egg" as eggs were around long before chickens were, they just weren't laid by chickens, nor did they contain chickens, and as such were clearly not "chicken eggs".

If you assume that the riddle is, in fact, talking about a "chicken egg", then the discussion as to what makes a "chicken egg" a "chicken egg" becomes relevant. Is it sufficient for the egg to contain a chicken, or must the egg have been laid by a chicken? If the former, then "the egg" remains the answer. If, however, the latter is the answer, then "the chicken" becomes the answer, as you will never have a "chicken egg" until it is laid by a chicken, which means the chicken had to exist first.

So the question on the table is - what makes a "chicken egg" a "chicken egg"? The fact that it contains a chicken, or the fact that it was laid by a chicken?

P.S. Happy Mother's Day to any and all mothers frequenting this board

Bloy

11th May 2008 - 03:46 PM

If an egg is sat on by a chicken (whether that egg is a chicken egg or not), does the ensuing hatchling experience a minute mutation as a direct effect of having been sat on and hatched by the sitting chicken?

Gorgeous

11th May 2008 - 05:27 PM

Another answer is 'neither'. Both the 'chicken' and its 'egg' are parts of the same evolving organism. Thus the 'proto-chicken' will lay a 'proto-chicken egg', but all things that exist carry the latent 'potential-parts' of the next thing they will become, and that they will have to adjust to being, depending on the changes that the environment will have on them (which, of course, IS the 'adjustment').

Why stop at 'chickens'? It is the same for 'What came first, the Human or the foetus?' - Everything is in a state of change/flux. The chicken of today is not the same chicken of tomorrow, but one (or more) step(s) closer to becoming something else...

Kind of just like Humans, as we become more 'Alien' to this Planet.

g.

Sinister Utopia

11th May 2008 - 05:44 PM

QUOTE (Bloy+May 11 2008, 03:46 PM)

If an egg is sat on by a chicken (whether that egg is a chicken egg or not), does the ensuing hatchling experience a minute mutation as a direct effect of having been sat on and hatched by the sitting chicken?

The only way Chicken would affect the 'Unknown' Egg would be in physical terms ie; Some Eggs require a specific temperature and incubation time scale to hatch. The temperature can also in some species affect the gender of the hatchling.

In taxonomy as I understand it, a new species is denoted when it can no longer reproduce with the parent or preceding species eg; after sufficient isolation.

So if that is true then the answer would be that both the Chicken and egg came first because the first Chicken was inside the first Chicken egg, however the first creature to lay the first Chicken egg was not a Chicken....I think

Bloy

11th May 2008 - 06:15 PM

QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 11 2008, 11:44 AM)

The only way Chicken would affect the 'Unknown' Egg would be in physical terms ie; Some Eggs require a specific temperature and incubation time scale to hatch. The temperature can also in some species affect the gender of the hatchling.

In taxonomy as I understand it, a new species is denoted when it can no longer reproduce with the parent or preceding species eg; after sufficient isolation.

So if that is true then the answer would be that both the Chicken and egg came first because the first Chicken was inside the first Chicken egg, however the first creature to lay the first Chicken egg was not a Chicken....I think

But if the "creature" that laid the egg was named a Zygoton, wouldn't the egg it laid be called a "Zygoton egg" even though it (the egg) contained a chicken?
This could lead to the conclusion that the chicken came first as it is not in a "chicken egg"

Sinister Utopia

12th May 2008 - 01:04 PM

QUOTE (Bloy+May 11 2008, 06:15 PM)

But if the "creature" that laid the egg was named a Zygoton, wouldn't the egg it laid be called a "Zygoton egg" even though it (the egg) contained a chicken?
This could lead to the conclusion that the chicken came first as it is not in a "chicken egg"

Again, the first question would be to qualify what type of egg we are discussing.

If it is considered a Zygoton egg, then the first chick would be inside a Zygoton egg.

If an egg is so titled by it's occupant then it would be both Chicken and egg came first.

However the definitions of species are a Human design to accurately categorize how, why and where living things differ.

So the Zygoton would be an ancestor of the Chicken. The egg is the protective material that houses the Bird during early development.

So perhaps it should be the Cell comes first or something like that.

buttershug

12th May 2008 - 04:15 PM

QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 11 2008, 05:44 PM)

In taxonomy as I understand it, a new species is denoted when it can no longer reproduce with the parent or preceding species eg; after sufficient isolation.

It's not so easy.

There are taxonomists who are "splitters" that is separate similar animals into different groups.
and there are taxonomists who are "lumpers" that is they lump animals together into the same species.

Look up ring species for a start into the subject of identifying species.

Sinister Utopia

12th May 2008 - 09:40 PM

QUOTE (buttershug+May 12 2008, 04:15 PM)

It's not so easy.

There are taxonomists who are "splitters" that is separate similar animals into different groups.
and there are taxonomists who are "lumpers" that is they lump animals together into the same species.

Look up ring species for a start into the subject of identifying species.

ahh, that's interesting buttershug, thanks for that.

Well if our Chicken/egg puzzle takes ring speciation into account then what does it mean in regards to 'which came first'?

or is it as I suspect an invalid question?

My head is spinning with all this talk of eggs, Ewok Omelette's anyone?

howtothinklikegod

14th May 2008 - 07:17 AM

QUOTE

Ewok Omelette's anyone?

You cannot make an omelet without cracking the egg first.

I think the chicken came out first. I mean, logically, an egg wouldn't live without the mother. Like babies and moms. If babies were made first, they wouldn't survive.

Anyway, got a question similar to that.

Who was the first Homo Sapien on Earth-- Adam or Eve??? Male or female???

photojack

14th May 2008 - 08:20 AM

Oh Jesus! Here we go again.

The fossil record for Homo sapiens goes back so far before the Bible was written, composed, rearranged, edited and had whole books removed from it, that there can be no doubt that neither Adam or Eve were the first humans on earth!

This whole series of queries about being "first" are moot points anyway. Speciation doesn't suddenly "create" a new species. I've worked with some of the top, internationally recognized experts on the species AND SUBSPECIES of birds and have had my comparative photographs used in scientific publications bringing these new developments to the academic world. The changes are subtle, develop slowly and are usually only recognized by careful scrutiny of study skins in museums with accurate labeling as to date and location. NO TAXONOMIST WOULD BOTHER HIMSELF WITH SUCH QUESTIONS. They do not look for "firsts"! They DO look at population dynamics, range distribution, migration patterns, foraging sources, breeding ranges, rarity and so much more. These are the workings of science, to find and save the migration corridors, protect the food sources and know if the populations are stable or not. Discovering the "first" Upupa epops, Homo sapiens or Tyrannosaurus rex will never happen. But so much of greater importance and value CAN be learned from science!

Bloy

14th May 2008 - 12:10 PM

QUOTE (photojack+May 14 2008, 02:20 AM)

Oh Jesus! Here we go again.

The fossil record for Homo sapiens goes back so far before the Bible was written, composed, rearranged, edited and had whole books removed from it, that there can be no doubt that neither Adam or Eve were the first humans on earth!

This whole series of queries about being "first" are moot points anyway. Speciation doesn't suddenly "create" a new species. I've worked with some of the top, internationally recognized experts on the species AND SUBSPECIES of birds and have had my comparative photographs used in scientific publications bringing these new developments to the academic world. The changes are subtle, develop slowly and are usually only recognized by careful scrutiny of study skins in museums with accurate labeling as to date and location. NO TAXONOMIST WOULD BOTHER HIMSELF WITH SUCH QUESTIONS. They do not look for "firsts"! They DO look at population dynamics, range distribution, migration patterns, foraging sources, breeding ranges, rarity and so much more. These are the workings of science, to find and save the migration corridors, protect the food sources and know if the populations are stable or not. Discovering the "first" Upupa epops, Homo sapiens or Tyrannosaurus rex will never happen. But so much of greater importance and value CAN be learned from science!

Spoil Sport!
You have taken a thread that was intended to be a departure from the rigors of exact science, removed the obvious frivolity, and reduced it to a basic lesson on how present day science remains limited in its quest for answers!

No insult intended, as you have furthered this discussion appropriately by bringing into the notion of "it will never happen" and setting up a new direction for the responders.

Thread intent:

QUOTE

by Dabeer I made this post simply to stimulate thought and some fun discussion, obviously there is some significant oversimplification of the process of evolution here

PS sorry ...can't add emoticons (limit reached). oops ..just exchanged one from quote.

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.