The egg came first ...

muckshifter

I'm not weird, I'm a limited edition.
Moderator
Joined
Mar 5, 2002
Messages
25,739
Reaction score
1,204
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/



Chicken and egg debate unscrambled


Egg came first, 'eggsperts' agree
Friday, May 26, 2006; Posted: 7:33 a.m. EDT (11:33 GMT)


LONDON, England -- It's a question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Now a team made up of a geneticist, philosopher and chicken farmer claim to have found an answer. It was the egg.

Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that 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 have first existed as an embryo inside an egg.

Professor John Brookfield, a specialist in evolutionary genetics at the University of Nottingham, told the UK Press Association the pecking order was clear.

The living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken it would develop into, he said.

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

The same conclusion was reached by his fellow "eggsperts" Professor David Papineau, of King's College London, and poultry farmer Charles Bourns.

Mr Papineau, an expert in the philosophy of science, agreed that the first chicken came from an egg and that proves there were chicken eggs before chickens.

He told PA people were mistaken if they argued that the mutant egg belonged to the "non-chicken" bird parents.

"I would argue 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."

Bourns, chairman of trade body Great British Chicken, said he was also firmly in the pro-egg camp.

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."

The debate, which may come as a relief to those with argumentative relatives, was organized by Disney to promote the release of the film "Chicken Little" on DVD.

user.gif
 

cirianz

Chatter Box
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
2,390
Reaction score
13
muckshifter said:
"Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that 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 have first existed as an embryo inside an egg." .....


....."The living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken it would develop into, he said.

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

ROTFL :lol: They paid people to study this? :lol:

Hang on... hasn't he just contradicted himself? Hasn't he just said that the first thing to posses the DNA of a chicken was the chicken inside the eggshell?

& since an egg is not a living organism in itself then that does seem to cancel out his last sentance.

& I must say that I disagree with their philosopher also. To me... if a kangaroo lays a bloody egg then I would say it was a kangaroo egg, whatever the h*ll came out of it
After all, we all know now that DNA can be injected into an egg :p

so much for eggsperteese... Now, pass us another beer ;) :p


:lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top