• Home
  • Daily Noise
  • Nerds in the Know
  • Yes, This is Dog.



Finally, An Answer to the Chicken or the Egg Question


 
 25 Jan 2013   Educational, Science, Video, Youtube

So, there you have it. The next time someone asks you this question, just memorize everything that AsapSCIENCE said here and school them.

 

via asapscience

 


    Share This


About The Author

nonerkylie
Nona and Kylie are butt-kicking web mods who are dedicated to curating the finest internet content.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bryanmounce Bryan

    I just want an omelette.

  • https://twitter.com/#!/asirenblue lolwow

    It’s a question that has perplexed humanity from as early as the ancient Greeks all the way to the 21st century. And we’re still dying to know:

    Which came first: the chicken or the egg?

    The question would be simple if we took it literally. Egg-laying animals existed far before chickens came about, so technically the egg came before the chicken. But this question, better worded as “the chicken or the chicken egg” focuses more on the cyclical cause-and-consequence, that is: “if a chicken is born from an egg, where did the egg come from?” And that a chicken, presumably, which too must have come from an egg.

    So which came first?

    On the one side, we have Team Chicken. Research suggests that the protein essential for the formation of chicken eggs called “OV-17″ is only found in chicken ovaries. Without it, the chicken eggshell could not be formed. So, without a chicken, you technically can’t get a chicken egg.

    But this depends on the nature and the definition of a chicken egg in the first place. After all, is a chicken egg an egg laid by a chicken, or one that simply contains a chicken? Obviously the OV-17-bearing chicken had to come from somewhere. But, if an elephant laid an egg from which a lion hatched, would it be an “elephant egg” or a “lion egg”?

    This leads to the other side of the story: Team Egg. During reproduction, two organisms pass along their genetic information in the form of DNA, but the replication of this DNA is never 100% accurate and often produces minor changes for the new organism. These small mutations in DNA over thousands of generations create new species. But these genetic mutation must occur in the zygote or the initial cell. So, a creature similar to a chicken, which we could call a “proto-chicken”, would have mated with another proto-chicken, and because of the small genetic mutation created the first chicken, which grew in an egg.

    So the egg came first? Well, Team Chicken might argue that this is simply a chicken growing in a proto-chicken egg, however, no one mutation can ever really constitute a new species. Even though we humans like to classify all creatures into different groups and names, this is often based on how things currently are, and not how they were millions of years ago.

    The process of evolution is so gradual that no one proto-chicken-to-chicken-birth could really be considered a new species at the time. Much like how dogs have come from wolves. As humans began to interact with and domesticate wolves, there was no one single point where a wolf gave birth to a dog. But rather, as particular traits came about from selective pressures such as choosing wolves that are not afraid of humans or ones that were less aggressive over many generations we can see many genetic and behavioural trait differences.

    So, where does this leave us?

    We’re left with two scenarios: Some early egg-laying species gradually led to the creation of the proto-chicken, which laid proto-chicken eggs. In one of these eggs, there was a mutation causing a slight change and selective advantage, and this was ultimately the first chicken, which then went on to lay chicken eggs. In this case the chicken technically came first.

    Or we have a proto-chicken which gave birth to a chicken inside what we would classify as a chicken egg. As such, the egg came first.

    Which brings back us to the nomenclature in question of what is a chicken egg, which is a fairly meaningless question. But the end of the day, what we can all agree on is that regardless of whether it was a chicken egg or a proto-chicken egg, the first true chicken came from an egg.

    The egg came first.

    There. Copy your way to an A. Or F.

    • Conspiracy Einstein

      Probably an F for me. My paper was on Paul’s Influences to the Early Churches.

      • http://dailyoftheday.com/ Kabwla Two-Lips

        I got an ‘F’ from my English teacher for the lack of character development.

  • ErzengelDesLichtes

    Ever since middle school I’ve found this question to be dumb. Obviously the egg came first, there were egg-laying species for ages before the chicken existed. Any arguments otherwise are based on semantics. Sure, if you define an “egg” as “an egg laid by a chicken”, then the chicken came first, because the chicken came from an egg that wasn’t laid by a chicken. But how is this semantic argument based on the ambiguity of the question useful?

    Back when the question was first posited, with the greeks presumably, they didn’t know what we know now about evolution, so I can understand them being stumped. But these days, this question should no longer be brought up as a logical conundrum, but as an answered question.

    • Bling-Nye, the Daft Punk guy

      The thing is, this question is a circular causality problem. “What came first, X which must be preceded by Y, or Y which must be preceded X?” It’s a concept that was easily asked metaphorically using chickens and eggs. Now perhaps we just need to find a new metaphor, but the concept of causality dilemma will always persist.

      Maybe, “Who came first, the father of the time traveler, or the time traveler who is his own father?”

      • ErzengelDesLichtes

        That depends on the nature of time travel.

        The problem with the circular causality is that, logically, it must not exist. Like the chicken and the egg argument, any scenario you come up with for circular dependency must have a starting point. For example, “the microcircuit printing machine has microcircuits in it, where did they come from?”, the starting point is a microcircuit printing machine that uses individual transistors, which printed the circuits used in the second generation microcircuit printing machine.

        • Bling-Nye, the Daft Punk guy

          No, the point of a circular causality dilemma is that there isn’t a simple starting point. Hence the ‘dilemma’ of trying to discern a start.

          “If X must be preceded by Y and Y must be preceded by X, which is the first to exist, X or Y?”

          In order for such a situation to exist, they must have already and always been in existence simultaneously.

          Besides, you realize in your first paragraph above, you basically say it’s both. First you said ‘obviously the egg,’ then later say ‘the chicken’ … It simply depends on the semantics of the question, but the pure circular causality isn’t semantic, the flaw is in the particular metaphor presentation.

          • ErzengelDesLichtes

            … No, I say that, as presented, it’s the egg. Then, if you then go and modify the question by redefining a word, going “Oh no, I meant this”, then sure, you’ve modified the result of the question by modifying a variable. It is not “both”, it is only “the egg”. The only way for the answer to be different is by making a semantic argument–by specifically redefining the question such that you win.

            Point out a circular causality dilemma that exists in the real world or is otherwise useful in the real world. Otherwise, it’s just a koan.

            • Bling-Nye, the Daft Punk guy

              ಠ_ಠ

              Are you willfully misinterpreting what I’m saying?

              You make remember why my relationship with semantics is very love/hate.

              And yes, it’s been a koan all along. I think you’re taking the question far too literally. There’s no blame in that though, since part of the human condition is to want answers. Sometimes though, the answer is that there is no answer… and that apparently makes some peoples’ brains short-circuit.

              Also, enlightenment is understanding, no? (Ah, semantics…)

              • ErzengelDesLichtes

                Spiritual enlightenment is not the same as (unmodified) understanding, no. (unmodified) Understanding is about understanding the world around you. The world around you has answers. If you are asking a question about the world around you, you seek answers, you seek understanding. Spiritual enlightenment, or spiritual understanding if you like, is about understanding the metaphysical, the spiritual, which is why it is modified with the word “spiritual”.

                The circular causality dilemma is simply a logical fallacy. A human (or possibly sentient) creation. It does not exist in the physical universe, or even in computer generated virtual universes, only in our heads. Thus it is not useful to general understanding, but is useful to spiritual understanding. It helps us to understand our mental logic, but it is useless in the real world because the real world does not function the way our simplified mental models do. The chicken and egg question applies to the real world, and thus has an answer, and so construing it as some sort of dilemma is “dumb”, as I put it.

                In the real world, initializable circular dependencies are VERY useful, like the microcircuit printer I previously mentioned. But circular dependencies that spring into existence fully formed, then asking how they’re formed, is not particularly useful in the general scope of the real world.

                Now, what is it you’re saying that I’m “willfully misinterpreting”?

                • Bling-Nye, the Daft Punk guy

                  Maybe I should’ve started by saying, logical conundrums being what they are, I’m saying while the chicken and the egg metaphor will no longer suffice as an example of a logical conundrum (basically agreeing with you), I’m saying logical conundrums still exist. That’s all.

                  Like a piece of paper that says on one side, “The statement on the other side is false.” and on the other side says, “The statement on the other side is true.”

                  It’s all just mental gymnastics, as was the chicken and the egg question.

      • http://dailyoftheday.com/ Kabwla Two-Lips

        Are you sure you really want to phrase it (although highly appropriately) as ‘comming’ ?

        • Bling-Nye, the Daft Punk guy

          Yeah, I realized that after the fact. LOL

          • http://dailyoftheday.com/ Kabwla Two-Lips

            Sound like the reply of a teenage parent….

            “Don’t you know that sex can get you pregnant?”

            • Bling-Nye, the Daft Punk guy

              Not if you swallow, duuuh.

              • http://dailyoftheday.com/ Kabwla Two-Lips

                Or that ‘garfunkel and oates’ thing.

                • Bling-Nye, the Daft Punk guy

                  What what

              • http://dailyoftheday.com/ Lascivious Lass

                om nom

  • Bling-Nye, the Daft Punk guy

    I like the mention of the DNA mutations and speciation, specifically the wolfs to dogs. I love pointing out evidence like that to creationists. There’s fine examples in horticulture too.

  • Bling-Nye, the Daft Punk guy

    Well, clearly the only way to solve this is to replace Schrödinger’s cat with the chicken and the egg. THEN we’ll see….

  • BrightRedFish

    The rooster came first, which left the hen somewhat disappointed.

    • Bling-Nye, the Daft Punk guy

      http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/sp/image/1346/25/1346251707652.gif

  • Benny the Icepick

    “But when does the egg turn into a human?”
    –Louisiana State Senator Mike Walsworth


  • Recent Posts

    • DR. BEES
      May 18, 2013
    • Someone Finally Animated Patton Oswalt's Star Wars Filibuster Rant
      May 18, 2013
    • I'm Just Gonna Leave This Here
      May 18, 2013
  • Our Sponsors

  • Our wonderful friends

    Tastefully Offensive

    Cultso

    ClipNation

    Gorilla Mask

    Break

    Pleated-Jeans

    Daily Picks & Flicks

    Stuff I Stole From The Internet

    Say OMG

    Nothing To Do With Arbroath

    Very Funny Pics

    Yababoon

    Boobs Bacon Bourbon

    Our Awesome Web Developer:

  • 413

    followers

    803

    fans

    Subscribe

    To RSS Feed
  • Recent Comments

    • rolthewolf on Korean Yoga is Best Yoga
    • TruuuV on Someone Finally Animated Patton Oswalt’s Star Wars Filibuster Rant
    • Benny the Icepick on Grab Your Popcorn: The First Anchorman 2 Trailer
    • DRoseDARs on Dog vs. Bride
    • Kabwla Two-Lips on Amazing Dancer on “So You Think You Can Dance”
  • Categories

    Advertising Animals Animation Art Awesome Bizarre Caturday Comic Cute Cute Animals Educational Entertainment Fail Fashion Food Funny Heartwarming Holidays Image Internet Late Night Snack Music Nature Nerd News News NSFW Politics Prank Recap Recess Science Short Film Sleepytime Space Sports Sundog Technology Trailer Uncategorized User Submitted Video Vimeo Whoopsies WTF Youtube



Copyright © 2013 Daily of the Day. Website by Hawkeye Design.

Thanks!

We received your submission, and it will be reviewed and redirected to the appropriate place. Remember, you're awesome. Stay that way.

Close