• PapaStevesy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    29 days ago

    It’s an egg that will hatch into a chicken, since the “first” chicken must have hatched out of an egg that was laid and fertilized by two “non-chickens” whose DNA combined together to make a full-blown chicken. Of course it wasn’t actually just one egg, but really, no matter how you think about it, the egg came first.

    • NewNewAccount@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      29 days ago

      Can mutations that occurred during life be transmitted to offspring? Biology classes were a long time ago.

      • Seleni@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        29 days ago

        That depends on what you mean.

        Did a giraffe stretch its neck longer and longer, and then pass that long-necked gene onto its kids? No.

        Can an embryo that gets a random mutation while developing in the egg/womb pass it on to their children? Yes.

        This gets a bit more complicated if you really dig into it, though. Environment does change the expression of genes, and that particular sequence of genes that have been activated/shut-off/whatever can be passed on to children too.

        Hence why children who were born to two shorter parents will often grow much taller than them if given much better nutrition. Or why obesity often shows up chronically in families that were poor or had limited access to healthier foods in other ways; their bodies had adapted to grab and store every extra calorie they could to guard against starvation, and unfortunately shutting that gene expression off naturally takes multiple generations.

      • PapaStevesy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        29 days ago

        Yes, that’s the driving force of evolution.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      29 days ago

      I agree, and I’ve made the same argument. It’s perfectly valid, Unless the egg belongs to the creature who laid it, instead of the creature that hatched from it.

      If the egg in question is a “proto-chicken’s egg” because it was laid by a proto-chicken, then the chicken would have come before the chicken egg.

      • PapaStevesy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        No it wouldn’t. If we’re going to talk about the creation of chickens as happening at a single instance of egg-laying, the two progenitors of said first chicken would be proto-chickens whose DNA combined in the fertilized egg to make, for the first time ever, a chicken. Yes, it’s a chicken egg, because it contains a chicken, but it’s also a proto-chicken’s egg because it wasn’t laid by a full chicken. It couldn’t have been, they didn’t exist yet.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          29 days ago

          There is no question as to the biology. The first egg that would hatch a chicken was laid by a proto-chicken. The genetic mutation that delineated chicken from proto-chicken first existed in that egg.

          By your argument, the status of the egg is dependent on what it contains.

          Suppose that proto-chicken pair laid an egg. And instead of it hatching into a chicken, I ate it. This egg never became a chicken; it was only an egg. It couldn’t be a chicken egg, because it never contained a chicken. It could only be a proto-chicken egg.

          The egg that the chicken hatched from only became a chicken egg once there was a chicken inside it. The chicken egg, therefore, could not precede the chicken.

          • PapaStevesy
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            29 days ago

            No, if a chicken could hatch out of it, regardless of whether or not it actually did, it’s a chicken egg. Nothing else could hatch out of it and it didn’t somehow cease to have been an egg just because it doesn’t hatch.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              29 days ago

              it didn’t somehow cease to have been an egg just because it doesn’t hatch.

              Correct. But, it was an egg laid by a proto-chicken; it is a proto-chicken egg.

              Our proto-chicken couple also laid an egg that would have become a “Shicken”, if I hadn’t eaten it first. But, because there was never a “Shicken”, there could never be a “Shicken” egg; the egg was only a proto-chicken egg.

              • AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                28 days ago

                No, the shicken egg was a shicken egg even prior to you eating it. The act of giving it a name is irrelevant. The proto-chicken could’ve lain a hundred eggs, each becoming a new “chicken”. If 99 of them die off and are never born then that does not mean they didn’t exist. It just means they did not exist in a way where we could’ve given them a name.

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  28 days ago

                  The act of giving it a name is irrelevant.

                  The distinction between “chicken” and “egg” is biologically irrelevant: they both refer to the same organism. The terms are descriptive, not prescriptive. The organism will progress the same way, regardless of what we decide to say about it.

                  The chicken/egg argument is purely one of semantics. “Giving it a name” isn’t just relevant to the discussion, it is the only factor relevant to the discussion.

                  The way you would have us describe the egg prevents us from accurately and consistently defining an egg. An egg laid by a chicken could mature into a new species, and by your arguments, should be described as an egg of that new species.

                  This creates a linguistic uncertainty in any case where the egg’s potential is not and cannot be known. Is there a Shicken egg among the dozen you bought? A Blargleblat egg? Do you have the eggs of a dozen new evolutions with a common chicken ancestor? You cannot say with certainty.

                  However, if we describe the egg as the product of the creature that laid it, we have no such uncertainty. If we describe it as the possession of the offspring within it, we have no such uncertainty. The uncertainty only arises when we try to define it by an unknowable condition that may or may not occur.

                  • AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    28 days ago

                    But that same argument works the other way too, no? If you define a chicken egg as an egg that came from a chicken, then if you have a dozen of eggs you cannot know whether they’re chicken eggs or whatever eggs unless you know specifically a chicken laid them. Even if you take a dna test of it and it comes back as “a chicken”, you cannot know whether it is in fact a chicken egg.

                    In the other definition you are capable of determining whether the egg is in fact a chicken egg by its contents.

                  • PapaStevesy
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    28 days ago

                    OK, think of it like this instead. Obviously fuck accuracy, for ease we’ll call them cavepeople. Two different cavepeople that are genetically distinct from humans have sex, resulting in a genetically human fetus. That doesn’t suddenly change the cavepeople into humans, they’re still genetically different. It’s a caveperson’s fetus, but it’s a human fetus. Same thing with the egg. Genetically, the thing inside is a chicken and, genetically, the things that made the egg are not.

      • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        29 days ago

        Feel like any kind of mutation that turns the pre chicken into the proto chicken happens at birth, if the pre chicken had a mutated offspring, I’d wager the egg is mutated significantly from what a normal pre chicken egg would be, since after all it has to support a proto chicken, not a pre chicken.