-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Which came first the chicken or the egg?
- Thread starter KoalaBear
- Start date
- Status
Grandeza
Smash Master
Well I really have no idea on an opinion but while a chicken can't spontaneously appear an egg can't either.(right?)
Well are we talking about a specific individual chicken or the chicken species?
Are we asking if the chicken species came first or the evolution of eggs which would have been much much sooner?
I have heard once that chickens are a crossbred species created by breeding a few different kinds of birds.
If that is true then the answer is the egg came first as it was laid by something other than a chicken and a chicken was hatched from it.
If chickens are a natural product of evolution, then neither came first. Chickens can only reproduce and make more chickens, with very slight variations of course. It would be impossible to find a specific animal and say with any certainty that "this is a chicken and the animals which produced it are not". So it would be impossible to assign an exact point of origin for either chickens or eggs.
Then of course if you believe in the literal biblical creation, (ugh...) then chickens came first, fully formed and probably with both original and extra crispy skin.
Are we asking if the chicken species came first or the evolution of eggs which would have been much much sooner?
I have heard once that chickens are a crossbred species created by breeding a few different kinds of birds.
If that is true then the answer is the egg came first as it was laid by something other than a chicken and a chicken was hatched from it.
If chickens are a natural product of evolution, then neither came first. Chickens can only reproduce and make more chickens, with very slight variations of course. It would be impossible to find a specific animal and say with any certainty that "this is a chicken and the animals which produced it are not". So it would be impossible to assign an exact point of origin for either chickens or eggs.
Then of course if you believe in the literal biblical creation, (ugh...) then chickens came first, fully formed and probably with both original and extra crispy skin.
snex
Smash Master
fish were using eggs for millions of years before chickens hit the scene.
manhunter098
Smash Lord
Well as I interpret the question, the egg had to have come first, but the initial genes for a chicken were made in a bird that could be considered a pre-chicken if you will. So I guess the egg would be where the fully fledged chicken first appeared from, since something that was not a chicken, had to have an offspring that was a chicken, otherwise the chicken would have to be some sort of eternal species.
The Executive
Smash Lord
Taymond
Smash Journeyman
Well I mean, there's the already mentioned fact that the egg itself long predates the chicken species, so obviously that can't be interpreted to be the question's meaning.
It then, arbitrarily depends upon what you consider to be the appropriate type of egg to qualify. Even though no such line can truly be drawn, we can talk about the situation were such a clear division possible. Blanket definitions like "an egg that contained what would become the first, fully defined chicken" or "an egg that was lain by the first fully defined chicken" already describe the answer in and of themselves, so can't be used.
Were such a "first chicken" describable, I think it's fairly arguable that that chicken came from an egg. The question is then, was that egg good enough? Was it chicken-y enough to qualify where a dinosaur or fish egg did not?
It then, arbitrarily depends upon what you consider to be the appropriate type of egg to qualify. Even though no such line can truly be drawn, we can talk about the situation were such a clear division possible. Blanket definitions like "an egg that contained what would become the first, fully defined chicken" or "an egg that was lain by the first fully defined chicken" already describe the answer in and of themselves, so can't be used.
Were such a "first chicken" describable, I think it's fairly arguable that that chicken came from an egg. The question is then, was that egg good enough? Was it chicken-y enough to qualify where a dinosaur or fish egg did not?
Ah but that is what I was saying in my first post. You can't have that kind of distinction. The differences between a single generation and the next can never be enough to warrant calling the next generation a new species. If you have a chicken, its parents must have been chickens as well. A such thing as a 'first' chicken does not exist. The best you can do is look at populations of animals and say "Genetically, this group was very chicken like, but not chickens, while the next group is definitely chickens." But following a single line back from the chicken group to the non-chicken group would leave you with no cut-off point. Each previous generation would be the same species as the offspring.
Since you can not even pin point a first chicken, it is impossible to find the egg it hatched from.
manhunter098
Smash Lord
Well then I would call the first chikcen, the earliest living bird that can produce fertile offspring with a modern chicken. That earliest organism that meets my qualifications for being a chicken came from an egg, so therefore the egg came first.
I also feel that my qualification for what is a chicken is correct, since anything that cannot breed with what we call a chicken and produce fertile offspring, cannot be a chicken, and by default two animals are of the same species if they can produce fertile offspring.
I also feel that my qualification for what is a chicken is correct, since anything that cannot breed with what we call a chicken and produce fertile offspring, cannot be a chicken, and by default two animals are of the same species if they can produce fertile offspring.
This. also: [what Snex said]
Taymond
Smash Journeyman
The problem is that that's not necessarily true. It'd be great if the definition could be that simple, but it isn't. The possibility of fertile offspring exists between many distinctly different species. Horses and Donkeys, though distinctly different, can breed easily to produce a mule. What's more, though, is that in the rare cases of fertile mules, a female mule bred with a male horse will produce a full horse, not a further diluted mule. The mule passes on only its maternal (horse) genes. The definition is particularly lacking if you only demand any unspecified fertile offspring.
Even if you require a fertile offspring that would qualify directly and undoubtedly as a chicken, generations of chicken and pre-chicken were undoubtedly so close in genetic composition that the chances are that there is a large margin of generations for which this would be true.
Two animals are not of the same species just because they can produce fertile offspring.
That just means they are very closely related.
I happen to have just such a thing going on in my own house. I have a 150 gallon aquarium with 24 African cichlids spanning 6 different species. Those 24 fish because they were of different sizes than the others of their own species, reproduced with other species of similar size and now I have 6 more fish that are a mix of species. And those fish are now reproducing.
Of course this very rarely happens in the wild lakes of Africa because it is not difficult for a fish to find a mate that is similar in size to themselves.
I really need to fins a way to stop them from having so many babies. My aquarium is getting pretty full.
Koskinator
Smash Lord
Ostrich + White Poodle = Chicken
- Status