Which came first?

[RedCelt69]

The other day, for a very rare treat, I popped to a local Chinese takeaway. Whilst waiting for my order to be prepared and short of something to kill the time, I picked up a recent copy of the Murdoch monstrosity that has "The Sun" on the front page. I believe that some people call it a newspaper.

Thumbing past articles (and tits) designed for people with limited reading skills, I found that I was reading a piece based on the research of a scientist bloke (which may well be how The Sun referred to him). Whilst researching something else entirely (the composition of chicken eggs) he claims to have proven, once and for all, that the chicken came before the egg. I didn't manage to memorise his name or any details of his research institution as the food order was completed.

Now.

This came as something of a surprise to me as I have long been of the view that the egg had to have come first. I'm pretty confident of that, too. Here's why:-

Before the very first creature that we would call a chicken, there was a series of stages of evolution going back to a time when the chicken's ancestor would be different enough to not be able to successfully breed with that chicken. Which would make it a distinctly different (although very similar) species. Between proto-chicken and actual-chicken, there would be a whole series of minute differences.

The proto-chicken and the varying line of pseudo-chickens would all have been egg-laying creatures. The very first chicken pecked it's way out of an egg laid by a pseudo-very-almost-but-not-quite-chicken. Which is an over-simplification, as mating between other pseudo-chickens would be involved and you would be hard-pressed to actually point your finger at the very first chicken as, genetically, it's a huge spectrum of shades of gray.

But anyway.

Was the scientist talking bollocks? Confused? or badly misquoted by something pretending to be a newspaper?

[Anon.]

Tuesday 13 July:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3052244/Official-Chicks-before-eggs.html
Thursday 15 July:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3054923/Official-Chicken-DID-come-before-the-egg.html

[RedCelt69]

Tuesday 13 July:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3052244/Official-Chicks-before-eggs.html
Thursday 15 July:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3054923/Official-Chicken-DID-come-before-the-egg.html

Ta. I love the first comment after the story:-

It took them all this time to figure this out? No offence but ive always thought it a test of how thick a person is when they couldnt figure this "riddle" out. Its **** obvious the chicken or at least the lifeform came before the egg. Eggs are reproductive methods OF and FROM existing forms of life, you could not have the egg without the chicken whether the protein existed or not because the parent lifeform is a requisite of any true egg. I must congratulate science on wasting a little more time and money on pointlessly obvious things, maybe someone should pass them a riddle book and they can bring the rest of the muppets in society up to date!

A Sun Reader called me thick. Today is a special day, indeed.

[Haunted]

The riddle is a great example of why phylogenetic taxonomy is bullshit.
There is no such thing as an archetypal chicken or an archetypal human, these things are not fixed they are in a state of constant change.

[dangorironhide]

I always saw it more as an argument as to the definition of the egg this chicken is coming from. If you were to define a 'chicken's egg' as the egg coming from a chicken, then we could say the chicken came first, however if we were to say that a 'chicken's egg' is the egg containing a chicken then it would seem the egg came first. With that argument it just breaks down to semantics.

Whichever came first, I'll have mine fried, on toast.

[Cain]

I want to know what Nikkala, 22 from Middlesex makes of all of this

[Gubbins]

Whichever came first, I'll have mine fried, on toast.

Certainly, sir. And would sir like the fried chicken or the fried egg to start with?

[dangorironhide]

While both options are very tempting, the natural choice would be to have them both in the same dish.

[David Bean]

I too worked out RedCelt's argument a priori, at the age of about seven. Seems pretty obvious, really, unless the first chicken somehow changed its species after its birth. Now that would be a clever feat!

[RedCelt69]

I too worked out RedCelt's argument a priori, at the age of about seven. Seems pretty obvious, really, unless the first chicken somehow changed its species after its birth. Now that would be a clever feat!

Two immediate questions spring to mind:-

1. At the age of 7, what (did you work out) laid the egg?
2. Do you know what a priori means?

[Haunted]

unless the first chicken somehow changed its species after its birth. Now that would be a clever feat!

Actually a taxonomist would have to accept that that is what happened. If species are fixed, discontinuous categories of lifeforms and if species can change over time then there must be a single parent=>child link that lies exactly on the border between two species. In this case between the proto-chicken and the chicken.
Now, as you age from birth your germ line cells accumulate mutations from things like copying errors, radiation, chemicals etc. With this in mind there must have been ONE single point mutation that resulted in the DNA in the proto-chickens' germ line cells turning into DNA that would produce a real chicken.
Again phylogenetic taxonomy is a purely human invention that doesn't really work in reality

[David Bean]

Two immediate questions spring to mind:-

1. At the age of 7, what (did you work out) laid the egg?
2. Do you know what a priori means?

Um, yes, and I also have a degree in Philosophy, as much as that has to do with the current conversation; and whatever the creature was that immediately preceded the chicken in the evolutionary scale - the proto-chicken, if you like. Of course I realise now it's slightly more complicated than that; what I imagine would have happened was that this proto-chicken of ours would have given birth to a slightly 'tweaked', i.e. mutated, version of itself, whose at that point unique genetic characteristics were for whatever reason propagated to its descendants, which made them chickens too. But I still reckon that's a reasonable approximation to make.

[RedCelt69]

Um, yes, and I also have a degree in Philosophy, as much as that has to do with the current conversation; and whatever the creature was that immediately preceded the chicken in the evolutionary scale - the proto-chicken, if you like.

Having a degree in philosophy doesn't mean that you know what a priori means. For instance, your degree in philosophy hasn't allowed you to understand the epistemological nonsense of such a claim. Degree = knowledge, now?

So, if you wouldn't mind, explain what a priori means and how you used it to reach a conclusion about the chicken and egg.

Of course I realise now it's slightly more complicated than that; what I imagine would have happened was that this proto-chicken of ours would have given birth to a slightly 'tweaked', i.e. mutated, version of itself, whose at that point unique genetic characteristics were for whatever reason propagated to its descendants, which made them chickens too. But I still reckon that's a reasonable approximation to make.

At the age of 7?

[macgamer]

unless the first chicken somehow changed its species after its birth. Now that would be a clever feat!

Actually a taxonomist would have to accept that that is what happened. If species are fixed, discontinuous categories of lifeforms and if species can change over time then there must be a single parent=>child link that lies exactly on the border between two species. In this case between the proto-chicken and the chicken.
Now, as you age from birth your germ line cells accumulate mutations from things like copying errors, radiation, chemicals etc. With this in mind there must have been ONE single point mutation that resulted in the DNA in the proto-chickens' germ line cells turning into DNA that would produce a real chicken.
Again phylogenetic taxonomy is a purely human invention that doesn't really work in reality

What you have just said supports what David said that an individual does not change species after birth. Mutations in trphe germ line cells are precisely the mechanism by which species to change gradually over time, so that the next generation are slightly different than what came before. Given that each species must occupy a specific niche in order to be viable, massive changes are firstly unlikely anyway and secondly likely to result in loss in the specificity to an available niche.

Yes phylogenetic taxonomy does have limitations, but it is the best we have at the moment so lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[macgamer]

At the age of 7?

Age of reason?

[David Bean]

Having a degree in philosophy doesn't mean that you know what a priori means. For instance, your degree in philosophy hasn't allowed you to understand the epistemological nonsense of such a claim. Degree = knowledge, now?

So, if you wouldn't mind, explain what a priori means and how you used it to reach a conclusion about the chicken and egg.

I'm unsure as to what you're talking about. If you really want to know what a priori means, you apparently have an internet connection so doubtless the answer can be furnished. If you're having trouble understanding what I said, it is also fairly simple. Having become aware of the basic theory of evolution and the 'which came first?' adage, I worked out the analysis we were discussing before I heard it anywhere else. Considering I was agreeing with you, I'm unclear as to why you're now challenging me on it. Were you suggesting something else?

As for this supposed claim of mine you're now calling 'nonsense', leaving aside once again the unaccountable hostility of your tone you might notice I didn't claim any such thing, although a reasonable person might imagine that having a degree in a subject wouldn't be entirely unrelated to some awareness of its most basic concepts. At the time I was simply at a loss to understand what my knowledge of the term's meaning had to do with anything.

At the age of 7?

Yes. What of it? As far as I'm aware both the theory and the adage were known in the year 1990, so I don't see what you can be disputing this time.

Anyway, back on topic, thanks to MacGamer for supplying a far more eloquent response to Haunted than I could have. Speaking strictly as an intrigued layman it's heartening to have one's thoughts explained so succinctly by someone who knows that they're talking about.

[Haunted]

What you have just said supports what David said that an individual does not change species after birth.

Yes and no because defining these things is difficult which is my entire point.

Yes phylogenetic taxonomy does have limitations, but it is the best we have at the moment so lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Best for what exactly? It's stamp collecting. It's an attempt to do the all to human thing of classify and categorise everything. This approach may work well in some sciences (e.g. the periodic table) but it's completely at odds with what actually happens in biology.
It may work satisfactorily when you want a snapshot of what life on earth is like at one moment in time, but even then this has limitations (e.g. horizontal gene transfer).
The current taxonomic system is to biology what Newtonianism once was to physics, i.e. good at some things, but with severe limitations. You can make refinements but it will take a revolutionary new system to actually advance us.
A system from the gene's pov is needed. Gene's are the fundamental unit's of replication and so it is only logical to start there and then build up (again think of chemistry before the periodic table).
This way it would be much easier to see life in terms of gene flow and not discontinuous jumps through 'transitions'. I honestly think that the language used when talking about life is holding a lot of people back from truly understanding it.

[jequirity]

Job jobbed.

[Guest]

Having a degree in philosophy doesn't mean that you know what a priori means. For instance, your degree in philosophy hasn't allowed you to understand the epistemological nonsense of such a claim. Degree = knowledge, now?

So, if you wouldn't mind, explain what a priori means and how you used it to reach a conclusion about the chicken and egg.

I'm unsure as to what you're talking about. If you really want to know what a priori means, you apparently have an internet connection so doubtless the answer can be furnished. If you're having trouble understanding what I said, it is also fairly simple. Having become aware of the basic theory of evolution and the 'which came first?' adage, I worked out the analysis we were discussing before I heard it anywhere else. Considering I was agreeing with you, I'm unclear as to why you're now challenging me on it. Were you suggesting something else?

As for this supposed claim of mine you're now calling 'nonsense', leaving aside once again the unaccountable hostility of your tone you might notice I didn't claim any such thing, although a reasonable person might imagine that having a degree in a subject wouldn't be entirely unrelated to some awareness of its most basic concepts. At the time I was simply at a loss to understand what my knowledge of the term's meaning had to do with anything.

It's been widely known and noted for some time that RedCelt69 is a poster (by no means the only one in Sinner history, mind) who assumes they are intelligent and has an unwarrented sense of self-importance which they deem gives them the authority to talk down to others and needlessly question their knowledge. It's a common assumption that is very quickly rectified when naïve students think that because someone has been accepted into St Andrews that they must be knowledgable. It's people like RedCelt69 who give uni students the pompous, smug, holier-than-thou reputation in the minds of the general public. In this instance it is, of course, apparent to all that you knew what a priori means and a degree in philosophy would certainly add credence to that fact but it is also information that did not need to be provided to indulge the insolence of a conceited cretin.

[RedCelt69]

It's been widely known and noted for some time...

...that people posting as Guests have the moral equivalence of a boiled egg. Which came before the boiled chicken.