The egg came first

Released from Th egg came first. --AdminAs I perused some threads of this forum I found a reference to the old questions of Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I don’t know where, but some time in the past I read a good logical answer to this question. Note that my version may contain technical errors not present in the original. Blame me, not the original.Evolution, with regards to one individual at a time, is when the descendent obtains an inheritable trait that is not possessed by the parent. The traits of each individual are established when the sperm and egg join and they have completed their genetic combination to form the complete set of DNA within the egg. After this process completes, the DNA, or the traits, of the individual are set for life.Therefore, the new trait is present first in the egg. Although the dividing line between the very first chicken and the something else that was its immediate predecessor is certainly a very broad and fuzzy one, the individual that was first worthy of the name chicken became worthy of that name as an egg.Therefore the egg came first.

quote:

---

But that egg was laid by the something else that was its immediate predecessor, so it could be considered to not be a chicken egg...

---

Well, if you really want to get technical, we could say that the newly fertilized zygote is a chicken but not yet an egg. After some hours or days inside its parent it becomes an egg, is laid, incubate, hatches and is a chicken.However, that is not the sense of the question. There is such a thing as getting too technical and loosing sight of the goal of the question.As the question is generally asked, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?", the egg is the immediate predecessor of the chicken and the chicken comes from the egg. (And of course, the chicken is the predecessor of the egg, but only if the predecessor is indeed a chicken.) It really doesn't matter what the parent is or was. Consider this absurd proposition: Imagine that turkey's zygote happened to undergo a massive genetic change as compared to its parent and became a chicken. The effect would be that the turkey laid an egg, the egg hatched, and the creature that emerged was a chicken. The clear conclusion would be that the egg came first.I used zygote just now to prevent confusion, but consider a mammal. There is no egg in the sense of an entity with a shell, but there is indeed an egg. When the egg has a genetic change from its parents, the egg is the new and changed entity with the new inheritable characteristics and the egg is the first entity worth of being called the new species. The egg comes first.

quote:

---

You are saying that the egg came first. I suspect that a creationist would say that the chicken came first.

---

Of course they would, they’re always wrong.Warning, incoming heavy artillery!

The egg came first. The answer is valid and creditable. First, a caveat:An unfertilized female egg inside the body of a chicken is an egg, but the English language is not precise. Let’s keep the discussion in the context of the question. This egg means this spheroid shaped entity from which some animal will hatch. In the sense of the question, it is what has been laid.Continue with the definition of evolution as applied at the simplest level. Evolution applies to all living things but I use animal for simplicity here. An animal has evolved, to some degree, when it has acquired an inheritable trait not possessed by its immediate ancestors. The only know point that we know of where this can be specifically observed is at the union of female egg and male sperm. Once the two have joined to form the egg, the traits of this descendant have been set.Assume some arbitrary dividing line where by one animal is not quite chicken, and its descendant is a chicken. The transition occurs during the fertilization of the egg. The egg is not truly viable until after this fertilization process is complete (there is a name for it, but I don’t know what it is right now). Until this point, it really should not be called an egg in the sense of the question of which came first.
Therefore, the egg is the first entity that carries the inheritable characteristics of the chicken.

quote:

---

A not-quite-chicken can't birth a chicken.

---

Who says so, and why not? A donkey can mate with a horse and the result is a mule. The mule is not of the species donkey or horse. A lion and tiger can mate and produce a liger or a tion (Not positive about the exact name of the latter but you can google liger) depending on which one is male and female. Proof that an offspring does not have to be the same species as the parent.When any of the above noted unions occurs, the genetic traits of the offspring are created when sperm and egg join together to make the new species. In these two examples, the new animal, in the egg state, exists before the infant. It really doesn't matter if the egg is laid and hatched, or incubated within the parent then delivered.That is rather positive proof that the egg comes first.

quote:

---

In other words, to find out which came first you'd have to find THE first in order to find out which came first and there isn't ever really a first.

---

See above, each mule or liger is a "first" in that they are completely independant of all other occurances of the same. Two birds,neither of which was chicken, could have mated to produce a chicken.The egg came first.

I have read your post, but my opinion is that you have not invalidated my position at all. I disagree with your premise and your conclusion. However, since I have no new content to add at this time, I will not further the argument. I am not certain where to look, but I will suspend my responses until I find something new.Just to be clear, I intend this to be one method of respectful conclusion when people disagree.

quote:

---

You assume that this egg could in fact survive.

---

Of course, that is what evolution is all about.

quote:

---

You have no idea what it came from.

---

Of course I do, it came from something that was similiar to but was not a chicken.

quote:

---

Its parent could be unnerved by this strange thing.

---

So what, let it be unnerved. But probably not. Chickens are not known for their overwhelming intelligence. If the chicken laid the egg and it hatched, the chicken will raise it. There are numerous examples of birds laying their egges in the nest of other species and having them raised.

quote:

---

Of course if this thing lays eggs then this egg will greatly differ from the others of its kind.

---

Maybe, maybe not, again, it doesn't matter. See above.

quote:

---

It might also take longer to hatch than other of this creature's eggs. Predators may damage the egg.

---

So what? It doesn't matter. it only takes one success to be sucessful. The number of failures is not relevant. How many chances can there be in millions of years. That is not figuratively speaking millions of years, that is one year (365 days) millions of times.

quote:

---

The parents would have to incubate it correctly on their first try.

---

Not a problem. How many eggs are incubated correctly on the first try? Maybe ask, how many eggs are incubated correctly on the second or third try. In the second sense, the question is not valid.

quote:

---

You see it is far more plausible for the creationist's "The chicken came first." That is one of the main problems with evolution. It assumes that everything has the knowledge it needs and that their is no trial and error process.

---

Not at all. Evolution does not assume any knowledge. Indeed, it disregards knowledge and need. It just happens, randomly. If the new trait is good, or does not cause immediate harm, it may survive and alter the species.The egg came first.

I received notification that someone replied to one of my posts and decided to jump back in.You, John, said a non chicken could not give rise to a chick. An animal cannot give birth to an animal of another species.I say it can. The fact that a mule and liger are not fertile does not prove me false. The basic fact is that an animal can indeed give birth to another species.Next, on what grounds to you say that? You say it, but you do not have evidence to support your position. I say it can, that is what evolution is all about, changes in inheritable characteristics.Do you reject the concept of man and primate sharing a common ancestor? At some point, maybe many points, the offspring was indeed different from the parent. Small differences, over time, add up to large differences.And to respond to other replies in general, a line that is arbitrary is not invalid because it is arbitrary. Often, it matters not that the dividing line is arbitrary. I claim this to be one of those times.In a true sense, the chicken and egg both evolved together. However, recall my original concept. The change comes when the egg and sperm combined and the genetic traits for the descendant are set. The egg is different from the parent in that it contains traits not posessed by the parent. That is the true definition of evolution, the decendant differs genetically. No matter how small the difference, the egg was entitled to the moniker "chicken" before a grown chicken was.Let’s throw this into the mix. Suppose a chicken is infected with a virus. Viruses enter the cells and can alter the DNA, sometimes the cell produces more viruses and dies, and sometimes it lives, but changed. Maybe a virus infected an egg cell, or a sperm cell, and altered the genetic content. Not much, but just enough to be different. When that egg or sperm combined with its new partner, a new species is born. Remember, there are millions of years for this to occur, and it only needs to be successful once.The egg came first.

quote:

---

But aren't you kind of arguing from a position of species essentialism? If a species is a reproductive community, or a community between whose members there is significant gene flow, then it's hard to understand how an offspring can be in a different reproductive community from it's parents - the gene flow between parent and child should be obvious.

---

I am not understanding what your are trying to tell me. First, do you disagree with my conclusion, the egg came first?Second,

quote:

---

it's hard to understand how an offspring can be in a different reproductive community from it's parents

---

If a species gradually evolves through a large number of generations, the each offspring will be in the same reproductive community. But each will be different. (For the sake of discussion, assume grandual and even and continuous advancement of characteristics) At some point we come to the arbitrary line where the parent is not a chicken and the offspring is. The is not and is are in the same community, but at the same time, that fine line gets crossed and we have a chicken.Am I addressing you positon or have I missunderstood?

quote:

---

I haven't decided which I believe came first. I'm just not certain that its reasonable to assert that a child can somehow be of a different species than its parent, when the child obviously belongs to the same reproductive community, the same population of gene flow, as its parents.

---

Those who believe in ToE know that humans and chimpanzees came from a common ancestor. If, as you say, a child cannot be of a species different from its parent, then how could we possibly evolved from an ancestor that also led to chimpanzees. Indeed, if as some say, all life can be traced back to the first primitive life with DNA, then to have a descendant of a different species seems to be required.

quote:

---

i.e. the parents are 49% chicken, and their offspring is 51% chicken

---

Seems to me the numbers should be 99% chicken and 100% chicken.No, I am not familiar with species essentialism. I found an article but have not read it.

quote:

---

I haven't decided which I believe came first. I'm just not certain that its reasonable to assert that a child can somehow be of a different species than its parent, when the child obviously belongs to the same reproductive community, the same population of gene flow, as its parents.

---

Those who believe in ToE know that humans and chimpanzees came from a common ancestor. If, as you say, a child cannot be of a species different from its parent, then how could we possibly evolved from an ancestor that also led to chimpanzees. Indeed, if as some say, all life can be traced back to the first primitive life with DNA, then to have a descendant of a different species seems to be required.

quote:

---

i.e. the parents are 49% chicken, and their offspring is 51% chicken

---

Seems to me the numbers should be 99% chicken and 100% chicken.No, I am not familiar with species essentialism. I found an article but have not read it.

quote:

---

I haven't decided which I believe came first. I'm just not certain that its reasonable to assert that a child can somehow be of a different species than its parent, when the child obviously belongs to the same reproductive community, the same population of gene flow, as its parents.

---

Those who believe in ToE know that humans and chimpanzees came from a common ancestor. If, as you say, a child cannot be of a species different from its parent, then how could we possibly evolved from an ancestor that also led to chimpanzees. Indeed, if as some say, all life can be traced back to the first primitive life with DNA, then to have a descendant of a different species seems to be required.

quote:

---

i.e. the parents are 49% chicken, and their offspring is 51% chicken

---

Seems to me the numbers should be 99% chicken and 100% chicken.No, I am not familiar with species essentialism. I found an article but have not read it.

quote:

---

You're the first evolutionist I've met who implies species essentialism, though.

​

To say that something is 99% chicken implies that there's some kind of chicken "essence", or a specific configuration of characteristics that means "chicken." That's species essentialism.

---

I am not certain what to say here. From my understanding of your statement, I do not buy into species essentialism. A chicken can be all white, all brown, all any shade in between, or an indefinite combination. It can be short having nothing but short immediate ancestors and descendants, or tall in the same manner (relatively speaking that is). But I would not say that any one exact chicken epitomizes all chickens. There is a broad range of chicken. I think that here is a communications disjoint. (I say disjoint because to me “problem” implies something is wrong and the error will be on one side or the other.)

quote:

---

The "line" is not a line at all, but a gradiation. It's fuzzy, and there's no way to say exactly when you've crossed it.

---

I agree. I went through a phase of coining aphorisms, one of which was: “There is no fine line of distinction, its always fuzzy and grey.” My favorite example is the photographers grey scale card, black on one side, white of the other, and it gradually changes from one to the other. At no point on the card can one say that this side is white and the other black.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If, as you say, a child cannot be of a species different from its parent, then how could we possibly evolved from an ancestor that also led to chimpanzees.

---

​

French evolved from Latin, to the point where a speaker of French cannot meaningfully communicate with a person who speaks only Latin. That change happened over successive generations of language change.

​

Nontheless it does not follow that one of those speakers of Latin had a child who spoke only French.

---

From my reading of this, you did not respond to the essence of my statement. The only way to get from a single species, the first life that existed, to today’s myriad of species, is for one species to begat two or more descendant species. This fact seems to completely refute your position.

quote:

---

... at no point can a parent be said to have given birth to an offspring of a different species.

---

In the genus Canis there are a number of species to include several species of wolf, coyotes, wild dogs, and others. While I am not positive, I am quite certain that many of these can breed between species. The offspring must be of a different species from at least one of the parents.On the other hand, it seems to me that the fowl that is 99% chicken, and the fowl that is 100 % chicken can be of the same species. We could line up a progress of descendants from one animal, such that each individual differs from its parent by some amount, but not enough to declare the individual and its parent of two different species. Yet if with compare the earliest animal with its 1000th generation descendant, they may well be different species.Again, we are back to the fuzzy line. No matter where we go and what we do, we will always be drawing arbitrary lines. That’s just the way life is.The whole point of the question was to focus on the union of sperm and egg. This is the point where inheritable characteristics differ. This is the identifiable point of evolution on the scale of the individual. I say this not with inarguable clarity and undeniable fact, but in general terms and concept:The egg came first.

From What Is a Chicken? - Incubation and Embryology - University of Illinois Extension

quote:

---

In Latin, gallus means comb, and the domestic chicken is Gallus domesticus. The Red Jungle Fowl, ancestor of most domestic chickens, is Gallus bankiva.

---

If a species cannot begat another species, and the only time genetic characteristics change is on the combination of sperm and egg, how did Gallus bankiva give rise to Gallus domesticus? If we were watching the transition one generation at a time, at what point would bankiva become domesticus? And why would we change our selection of its species name from bankiva to domesticus?Obviously we cannot speak in facts about what happened, but we can discuss the concept. Unless of course you know one heck of a lot more about the transformation of Gallus bankiva than I, which is rather probable.