Cracking an age-old conundrum.

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,326
1,799
113
The Times May 26, 2006


How two philosophers and a farmer cracked an age-old conundrum
By Alan Hamilton

It was the egg that came first, not the chicken, according to a study of the poultry pecking order


IT IS the ultimate conundrum of the poultry world, debated by generations of scientists, academics and philosophers.

Which came first: the oval thing with the hard shell, or the dim-witted, toothless bird that clucks as it crosses the road for no obvious reason? Now two of the best brains in the land (and a chicken farmer) claim to have solved the catch 22. The answer, it has been decreed, is the egg.

And here follows the science, expressed as far as possible in terms a reasonably educated hen would understand.

Genetic material does not change during an animal’s life.

Therefore, the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must first have existed as an embryo inside an egg.

Professor John Brookfield, a specialist in evolutionary genetics at the University of Nottingham, who was put to work on the dilemma, said that the pecking order was perfectly clear: the living organism inside the eggshell would have the same DNA as the chicken that it would become.

“Therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg,” he said. “So I would conclude that the egg came first.”

David Papineau, an academic specialising in the philosophy of science at King’s College London, concurred. In his view, the first chicken came from an egg, which, he claims, proves that there were chicken eggs before there were chickens. Here, the science moves out of reach of the hen-brained. Professor Papineau maintained that people were mistaken if they argued that the first chicken egg was a mutant produced by non-chicken parents.

“I would argue that it is a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it,” he said. “If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg.”

It is perhaps best at this difficult juncture to gloss over the fact that a kangaroo is a marsupial and does not lay eggs in the way that chickens or ostriches do — or all. Rather, it gives birth to a joey.

Also, a kangaroo bouncing around the Outback would be highly unlikely to come across an ostrich with which to attempt such an unlikely union. These overgrown birds inhabit an altogether different continent.

Charles Bourns, a chicken farmer and chairman of the trade body Great British Chicken, also favours the egg argument. He said: “Eggs were around long before the first chicken arrived. Of course, they may not have been chicken eggs as we see them today, but they were eggs.”

If they had been around so long, and were presumably missing their best-before date stamp, they would have been best avoided.

The “chicken v egg” debate was prompted by the Disney film studio to mark the release of its movie Chicken Little on DVD.

But the learned discussion poses more questions than it answers. Creationists, for example, will argue that if God created Adam and Eve, he probably had a spare five minutes to knock up a chicken as well.

Science still has many unanswered questions, such as what existed before space? What do you come to when you pass the restaurant at the end of the universe?

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it still make a noise? And exactly which law of physics will allow Michael Ballack enough time away from the Chelsea playing field to spend £130,000 a week?

But the biggest question of all remains unanswered: what laid that first egg, if it wasn’t a chicken?

thetimesonline.co.uk
 

spartacus

New Member
Jun 4, 2006
1
0
1
BC/QC
RE: Cracking an age-old c

If the biggest question remains unanswered, then they really didn't crack anything ..even for humour's sake.
>.>
<.<
 

bluealberta

Council Member
Apr 19, 2005
2,004
0
36
Proud to be in Alberta
Re: RE: Cracking an age-old c

spartacus said:
If the biggest question remains unanswered, then they really didn't crack anything ..even for humour's sake.
>.>
<.<

I think the biggest question by far is who decided that something that comes out of a chickens butt could be edible? Second question is when did they decide to cook it to make it better? :eek:
 

dekhqonbacha

Electoral Member
Apr 30, 2006
985
1
18
CsL, Mtl, Qc, Ca, NA, Er, SS,MW, Un
what do they mean by which one come first? About the name or living creature. About the name I don't know, whether chicken was given first or egg. But from living point of view, chicken came first.

Because the first things that immigrated from water to land walked, escaped from predators, rushed for new food available on land. Then they adapted to the land.

And during evolution some kind of birds differed from others and became what we see today.

So, it's not the egg that escaped from the sea, but the living creature.
 

CAD

New Member
May 14, 2006
14
0
1
the lowest 48
www.xmere.com
"Yet again, it's the chicken and the egg situation," someone said. To which I replied: I do have the answer to that one, finally, as to which came first. It's the egg. Really, it's just a matter of evolutionary biology. The egg contains the unhatched animal we would recognize as "chicken." Hence, it had to be laid by something slightly removed from this creature.

Call it "proto-chicken" or "Not-Chicken." But I digress...

Apparently, it took a geneticist, a philosopher and a chicken farmer (which sounds very much like "A rabbi, a priest, and a platypus walk into a bar...") to produce an answer worth CNN's time.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
This answer has been obvious for over a century to anyone who understands how evolution works. The very first chicken, as CAD said, had to come from an egg laid by almost-but-not-quite-a-chicken, hence the egg came first. Elementary...
 

dekhqonbacha

Electoral Member
Apr 30, 2006
985
1
18
CsL, Mtl, Qc, Ca, NA, Er, SS,MW, Un
My answer is that the whole thing (life) started in water. Then those creatures immigrated to earth, and the evolution continued on earth.

Then the different kinds of birds, animals might have been formed.

Although I am not sure about it because I've not seen all the process. I don't disagree with proven results but I don't trust them 100%.

To conclude something about the past, we (humans, scientists particularly) make 10 of thousends of assumption.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
Well, if you really wanna know, read Richard Dawkins (books called The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, A Devil's Chaplain) and Ernst Mayr (What Evolution Is), and pretty much anything by Stephen (or maybe Steven; don't remember offhand) Jay Gould, for articulate, thoughtful, expert opinions and analyses of various details of how evolution works.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
A warning though: those guys don't always agree with each other about the details, though none of them doubt the basic facts of evolution. Dawkins and Gould in particular have some serious differences, mostly stemming from the fact that Dawkins is a flaming atheist and Gould thought (he's dead now, too young) there's no fundamental disagreement between science and religion. He called them non-overlapping magisteria, while Dawkins thinks any religious belief is a delusion that's fundamentally not compatible with the scientific view and must therefore be wrong.
 

dekhqonbacha

Electoral Member
Apr 30, 2006
985
1
18
CsL, Mtl, Qc, Ca, NA, Er, SS,MW, Un
But scientists also must recognize the fact that their results are based mostly on assumptions.

If some of their assumption is not held, their experiment might be wrong.

But so far there is not an alternative for science, except the religious, that's why their results are accepted as primarily.

In the future the view on the science may change dramatically. If another planet in the universe is found; and it has similar characteristics to the Earth past, the conclusions about the Earth past will be different.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
Re: RE: Cracking an age-old conundrum.

dekhqonbacha said:
But scientists also must recognize the fact that their results are based mostly on assumptions.

Not really. The only assumption science and its practitioners really make is that nature is consistent and, at least in principle, comprehensible. Results are based on careful testing and observation of nature to see how it actually works, and so far that assumption has been borne out. What other assumptions are you talking about? Are you sure you're not confusing assumptions with hypotheses?
 

dekhqonbacha

Electoral Member
Apr 30, 2006
985
1
18
CsL, Mtl, Qc, Ca, NA, Er, SS,MW, Un
No, I'm sure about it.

Because the scientiests started to look at what happened in the past based what is happing now.

That is one of their major assumption, like you say "nature is consistent." And they have to make other assumptions as well. If they find any bond to analize it, they have to assume that it consists of whatever things, and it's subject to whatever things, and blah, blah, blah.

Then finally they carry out their experiment. Then they copare it with other things. If they match, they are good. If not, they are still good because thers is alternative for their result.

But we are living at most 100 years, and scientific experiments are taking places in the last 150 years. How could we know what the Earth was like at the beginning, where do we know that life started in the water and things like this.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
I don't think you have any idea how science works, if the little bit of meaning I was able to extract from that is correct. "If they find any bond to analyze it..?" I have no idea what that means. "...they have to assume it consists of whatever things...?" That one goes by me too. Words like "whatever" and "blah, blah, blah" don't contain any information. I really don't understand what you're trying to say.
 

CAD

New Member
May 14, 2006
14
0
1
the lowest 48
www.xmere.com
Dawkins is also credited with the concept of the 'meme,' or inter- and intragenerational thought-form, passed (if successful, though that does not necessarily imply that it is good) from person to person, culture to culture, etc. An example of a meme is the general disdain of scientific methodology by the ignorant, who dismiss the abundance of evidence represented by fossil records, and now genetic mapping, available to produce "theories."

While a good theory will dramatically diminish the likelihood that Proto-Chicken arose--perhaps, spontaneously generated by primordial muck--at some intercessional point, thus confounding the Animal/Egg rhetoric, it will not eliminate the possibility entirely. Scientists accept that there is nothing 100% true, but do not commonly replace the infinitessimal unlikelihoods with something so esoteric as "faith."
 

dekhqonbacha

Electoral Member
Apr 30, 2006
985
1
18
CsL, Mtl, Qc, Ca, NA, Er, SS,MW, Un
To build a theory, in school, we are learning that we should take a particular think to analize. Then we should set the assumptions under which the theory will held. Then we should test it like comparing the available data and see if it works. If it works then we have a theory. This theory works only under certain assumptions. If any of the assumed things turn out to be wrong, then the whole theory should be revised.