• bulwark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s always the egg because the thing that laid what we consider a genetic chicken egg wasn’t an animal that we consider a genetic chicken. Mutations happen in utero or whatever it’s called when a baby is growing in an egg

    • ObM@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I hear you and actually subscribe to your magazine. But…

      Is your chicken-zero growing inside a chicken egg, or is it growing in a proto-chicken-thingo™ egg? I agree the thing growing will be born as the worlds first chicken and then grow its own eggs but what do we call the egg it’s in?

      Is the egg named after the thing it hatches? Or, is the egg named after the thing that made the egg? Which might be the same as asking, is it called a “chicken egg” or “chicken’s egg” … or… both?

      I guess I’ll need to actually read the research paper to find out.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        The domestic chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) was a mutation of the red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus) that occurred after fertilization and before hatching. Therefore, the egg that the first domestic chicken hatched from was a domestic chicken egg laid by a red jungle fowl.

        • Nougat@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          But did the mutation occur before or after the egg was laid?

          If it happened after the egg was laid, then when the egg was laid, it was not a chicken egg, only transforming into a chicken egg at the moment the mutation occurred.

            • Nougat@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Wouldn’t the creature hatched from this mutated egg only really become a “chicken” by successfully reproducing, and passing its “chickenness” to a new generation of creatures? Beyond that, wouldn’t there need to be enough successful generations of “chicken” reproduction in order to cement “chickens” into the biosphere, for long enough that humans evolve and identify them as “chickens”?

              Only after that could you look into the past and say that egg was the first “chicken egg.” At the time the egg was laid, and I would argue when the egg mutated, and then also at any time before “chickenness” was defined, there would be no way to correctly assert that a specific egg was “chickeny”.

              So … “chickenness” must have come into existence first, and only then could it be possible to look back in time and identify the first egg that qualifies as a “chicken.”

    • AmidFuror@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      As others have said, this is a side discussion inspired by the headline but not really related to the article.

      That said, there is no proto-chicken that laid a chicken egg or a chicken hatching out of a proto-chicken egg. There was no “first chicken.” Populations evolve, not individuals. Let’s not confuse a de novo mutation with evolution. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time, and speciation is reproductive isolation of populations experiencing allele frequency shifts.

      There are still population-wide polymorphisms in humans that are present in gorillas but have been fixed in chimpanzees. Populations of proto-chickens gradually evolved into chickens, but if there were a hard line to define the distinction (like the wavelength where orange ends), then there would have been a long time of proto-chickens and chickens interbreeding and their descendents oscillating back and forth between the two definitions over generations.

      • bulwark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        I also think the chicken or egg question isn’t great and agree that it evolved over a long span of time, multiple times. The oscillation between the proto species and species is really interesting to think about and makes a lot of sense. Thanks for your insight.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      2 days ago

      Article takes it further.

      It’s not egg before chicken

      It’s egg before multicellular life.

      Which is groundbreaking and is pretty shocking.

      This just seems like another example of a great scientific article, that just had a random clickbait headline thrown on it by the editor or maybe some intern to generate clicks.

    • Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah that title is written by someone who’s not understood evolutionary mechanics.

      I have no sympathy for this pseudo science bullshit title game.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        You should try reading more than just headlines…

        Because people who only read headlines, are the ones to blame for these clickbait headlines even on genuine scientific articles.

        In all likelihood the author had nothing to do with the headline, and the only reason the headline is there is so the article gets shared by people who won’t click talking about how dumb it is.

        And then the few who actually read articles correct them.

        More comments mean the post gets seen more, and people talking about how the article isn’t as bad as the headline gets more to click on it.

        You’re the reason they have to use shit headlines, and they’re exploiting your behavior to compensate for it.

        It’s honestly genius, but my guess is you’re going to get mad they’re able to predict people like you so well.