this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
13 points (76.0% liked)

Asklemmy

45258 readers
1324 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

EDIT : It seems as no one understood what i was talking about and maybe its my fault for not elaborating . I always thought chicken was a metaphor for this paradox and not really meaning chicken as a specific spiece . So my question is how did the ancestor of chicken came to be if it was born (egg) wouldn't it need a parent or if it was a parent (chicken ) woudn't it need to be born ? Or did all the creatures start out as bacteria and climbed out from ocean through evalution if so why isn't any new species being born this way or am i missing something ?

top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] amio@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago

If nothing else, eggs were a way of producing offspring many millions of years before anything you can reasonably call a chicken.

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Chickens evolved from earlier animals. The process is gradual, of course, but we can say that at some point some proto-chicken ancestor laid an egg that was different enough genetically that it counts as a chicken. In other words, a non-chicken laid a chicken egg, which eventually grew up to be the first chicken. Therefore, the egg came first.

[–] cali_ash@lemmy.wtf 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

but we can say that at some point some proto-chicken ancestor laid an egg that was different enough genetically that it counts as a chicken

This is not correct. At no point can the offspring in a single generation be differnet enough to be called a different species.

What we call "species" are just current snapshots of time. Species only make sense in a narrow timeframe. In reality things change very slowley over a large amount of time and there a no clear transition points.

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is not correct. At no point can the offspring in a single generation be differnet enough to be called a different species.

I'm not saying we should call it a different species but if we're saying species Y is the direct descendant of species X, then, we can imagine a dividing line, and the line must always begin with an egg because eggs are different from their parents but adults are not different from the egg they started off as.

In reality things change very slowley over a large amount of time and there a no clear transition points.

Isn't that obvious?

[–] novibe@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

But that line can only ever be imaginary. There was never a proto-chicken that birthed a chicken. All chickens were birthed by chickens, all proto-chickens birthed proto-chickens.

We can make an imaginary line, but if went looking for it we would never find it.

[–] Lmaydev@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Something not defined as a chicken would have to lay an egg that hatched something defined as a chicken at some point. Otherwise we couldn't have chickens.

But as you say the definition is the problem with this question.

[–] cali_ash@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 year ago

Something not defined as a chicken would have to lay an egg that hatched something defined as a chicken at some point. Otherwise we couldn’t have chickens.

Yep. But at least with our current definition of what a "species" (roughly a group of organism that can interbreed and have fertile offspring), that's not possible.

If some not-chicken would lay an egg that hatches a chicken, that chicken would have nothing to breed with. It would basically be a genetic defect that makes it infertile.

[–] sushibowl@feddit.nl -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

at some point some proto-chicken ancestor laid an egg that was different enough genetically that it counts as a chicken. In other words, a non-chicken laid a chicken egg

This is incorrect. If I take an ostrich egg, empty it out through a small hole, then put a chicken fetus inside, it does not suddenly become a chicken egg. We must therefore conclude that "chicken egg" can only reasonably be defined as an egg laid by a chicken.

The proto-chicken ancestor can never lay a chicken egg, it can at most lay a proto-chicken egg which by some mutation contains a chicken. Therefore the chicken came first.

[–] hallettj@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

When science kills the mystery, semantics keeps the debate alive!

[–] the_q@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Incorrect. Until the chicken hatched it was a proto chicken.

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Proto chicken" in this context refers to a genetic ancestor of the chicken. An egg hatches into the exact same species as the egg itself, but the egg is genetically different from the mother that laid the egg, and in this thought experiment, we're talking about the mother being different enough to call a different species.

[–] the_q@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So if the mother was genetically different enough to be called a different species then...say it with me... the chicken came first.

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

No, that's not right. The species transitioned from the proto-chicken to the chicken. Whichever specific individual we call the first chicken started off as (say it with me) an egg. The mother's offspring was different enough to be the first chicken.

Eggs existed long before the chicken, or the species that gave birth to the chicken. What's in that egg doesn't matter, when it's the latest in a long line of eggs, the contents of this egg can't precede eggs.

[–] the_q@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But you don't know if the proto chicken's offspring is a different kind of chicken until it's hatched. That's how you get a new species.

It's a bit of a Schrodinger's egg situation I guess.

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

For what it's worth it's possible to test the contents of an egg, but it's moot because it doesn't actually matter when we know. It exists independent of observation.

[–] Zellith@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Species is just a thing we use because we like to put things in boxes. It's all just transitions. The life between species could be described as it's own species if we shifted the scale. Again, boxes.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The baby chicken in the egg is the same chicken that hatches from the egg, but we call it an egg until it hatches. Egg first.

[–] the_q@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't know what's in the egg until it hatches.

[–] Donebrach@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

so true, it could be bees for all we know.

[–] Donebrach@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

the egg that hatched the first chicken, obviously, laid by something that was not quite what we’d consider a chicken.

[–] Paragone@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fish, arthropods, etc, had eggs millions of years before chickens.

_ /\ _

[–] arthur@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Dinos (~~within the arthropods~~) are an easy example.

Edit: correction

[–] Eonandahalf@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] arthur@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Afaik, is the other way around. All birds are dinosaurs, but there are non-avian dinosaurs as well.

[–] Eonandahalf@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Ahh cool πŸ˜…. I mean… chickens aren’t exactly avian 😊and can you imagine a giant naked chicken, how is that not a dino πŸ˜›

[–] cali_ash@lemmy.wtf 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The concept of "eggs" is way, way older then chickens. Fish lay eggs. So in this case, it's definitly the egg that came first.

You can dig deeper, but eventually you end up on the what is a "chicken egg" and a "chicken" .. which means you have to deal with taxonomy. And well, it's just made up... so that doesn't really lead anywhere.

So I say it's the egg. final answer.

[–] neidu2@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago

This is the only answer. Dinosaurs laid eggs long before they evolved into chickens.

I'm genuinely curious OP how you could even consider the chicken coming first? How did you imagine that scenario going down?

[–] qooqie@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can’t really remember the study or whatever, but the answer is egg. You’d need the mutation in DNA in the laid egg before you could get the chicken. And then propagation after until chickens are everywhere of course.

This is a simplified version of what I read, but that’s basically it.

[–] themusicman@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unless you define "chicken egg" as an egg laid by a chicken. It's question of definitions

[–] lemmefixdat4u@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

But the question doesn't specify a "chicken egg". It simply says "egg". So the answer is egg, laid by some chicken ancestor.

[–] hallettj@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

To answer your other question, yes there are still single-cell organisms evolving into new species all the time, in the ocean and elsewhere. That includes new multi-cellular species evolving from single cells all the time. But it takes a long time to develop from cell, to clump of slime, to something with legs. So you might not notice the changes if you aren't super patient.

Or were those separate questions? Are you asking if chickens descended from single-cell organisms? Yes they did. With a lot of steps in between.

[–] crystenn@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

to answer your edit, yes all creatures started out as single celled-organisms many billions of years ago and gradually evolved. this process is still happening today but takes millions of years, not something you would observe in a human lifetime