Which Came First, The Chicken Or The Egg? Chickens as a species became chickens through a long slow process of evolution.
At some point a chicken-like bird produced an offspring that due to some mutation in its DNA crossed the threshold from mere chicken likeness into chicken actuality.
That is to say a proto-chicken gave birth to a real-life official chicken. And since that real-life official chicken came out of its own egg we can say that the egg came first.
Another way to look at the question would be to ask which came first in evolutionary history.
Once again the egg takes precedence. Many characteristics of the modern avian egg namely an oblong asymmetrical shape and a hardened shell were in place before birds diverged from dinosaurs about 150 million years ago.
A lot of the traits that we see in bird eggs evolved prior to birds in theropod dinosaurs says Darla Zelenitsky of the University of Calgary.
Another key moment in the history of avian eggs occurred at least 150 million years before that
when a subset of four-limbed vertebrates evolved to produce amniotic eggs. The embryos within the eggs were surrounded by three fluid-filled membranes that provide nourishment protection
and a way to breathe. The earliest amniotic eggs contained large amounts of yolk says James R. Stewart a reproductive physiologist at East Tennessee State university.
You still see that in birds crocodilians and snakes he explains. Like other placental mammals we humans lost our yolk somewhere along the line
but our eggs still come with a vestigial yolk sac. Have a burning science question you'd like to see answered in our FYI section?
Email it to fyi@popsci. com. umm well then...shall I press on and ask Which came first the dinosaur or the egg?
Lets see if you can answer that. The genetic mechanism is the same for all life.
Sovereign individuals not governmentsbut before it was hatched that egg was a probabilistic uncertainty. So before hatching probability would tell you that egg hosts that protochicken and not the modern version.
Yes there us a chance of a mutation into a chicken but there is also a chance it mutates unto a dinosaur.
Small but there. The probability function only collapses once the chicken is out of the egg.
The question that concerns me more is did where the first chicken find its rooster? Chickens as a species became chickens through a long slow process of evolution.
At some point a chicken-like bird produced an offspring that due to some mutation in its DNA crossed the threshold from mere chicken likeness into chicken actuality.
Sounds more like part of creed than a scientific argument.''And the bird made chicken walked among the avians who knew it not'is a much more poetic way of saying the same darn thing.
You know unless evolution took a rib next that first chicken would have had to reproduce with something other than a chicken.
It all stays on the same branch unless that chicken finds a way to make two chickens.
Another way to look at it...would be created that God the chicken first. Oh but that's not as scientific as saying a long time ago in a primordial pool far far away...
Its cute but I would much rather hear about the science. I remember reading something about OC-17 being produced by the chicken to help form the egg shell.
That is a far more interesting conversation than corpus gallinaceo. What came first POPSCI the website or the writers for POPSCI lol.
Oh and for as the chicken and egg question Life came first and multiplied. But what IS a chicken?
Since all life is constantly in a state of becoming or changing then all chickens are distinct individuals
and cannot be grouped for the purpose of this question. Each chicken from the first to the last is an individual.
So we see that a chicken came from an egg in each instance. Therefore an egg always comes before a chickeni watched a youtube video of Chris Langan answering this quesion the same waykillert
-I think youre wrong. The chicken one way or another can be grouped within a spectrum of dna.
So even if one chicken species varies from another there is a point in their evolution that we can say this is now a chicken.
And that change would have occurred-most likely in the embryo. Its like saying a tree falling in the forest doesnt make a sound
because a sound should be defined as a sound wave being observed which is just arguing semantics. Now it is possible that the egg wasnt genetically changed as an embryo to make it the chicken
and that a pre-chicken bird was changed genetically enviromentally to the point where it entered that spectrum of chicken dna.
IE: maybe it was really close to a chicken but had 2x more feathers and of a different color and 3 feet but enviromental changes caused the chicken to mutate as such to become within the spectrum of chicken dna.
Nooneyouknow Why do you say the chicken has to reproduce with something other than a chicken?
Why couldn't it have siblings cousins parents etc that it could mate with? All that is needed is for the more chicken like birds to out-breed the rest over generations
and presto you have a new species. The truth is all of the above contributed to the chicken.
Domesticated birds were interbred with wild birds to create a new species called chicken. So God did not create chickens.
People and horny birds did. Goo came first then life came from goo and then for
what ever other reason can replication of same said life else you have just orginal new life again in wide varieties then dies
Sorry but an embryo is not a chicken. So the egg still comes first. lol Just imagine
if all life was created they must all have been alive on earth at the same time and have been dying off rapidly ever since.
What a mess good thing the Earth's climate will only support a fraction of them at any given time
@Killert Why do you say the chicken has to reproduce with something other than a chicken?*
*Breath*Because the FIRST chicken would be the ONLY chicken in existence until you had a SECOND chicken.
Now chances are this chicken is either too horny or too short lived to wait for another chicken to evolve
so its going to have to settle with a member of another already existing species. This is an unavoidable roadblock for evolution this new bird's genetic material is added merely to that of an existing species where evolution requires it branches off on it's own.
If a chicken-like species reproduced over millions of years and became chicken proper that still wouldn't be evolution.
Further more if reproduction had anything to do with it then more rapidly reproducing species like rabbits should have outpaces us long ago
Rabbits as far as we can tell have always been rabbits. Some species such as beavers we know for a fact have not changed for millions of years.
Chickens lay chicken eggs. Fish lay fish eggs (if you can call it laying) so wouldn't neanderchickens lay neanderchicken eggs?
This is the problem with evolution (or the problem with our way of dividing species). At some point neanderchicken will have to lay a chicken egg
or a a chicken will have to hatch from a neanderchicken egg. Both seem kinda funky. And as was pointed out above by someone
I don't know once the first chicken hatched it would have to mate with a neanderchicken
which wouldn't result in a new species just a neanderchicken with chicken traits. Anyway my point is that the chicken would have to come first
since the egg whence it hatches wouldn't be a chicken egg by virtue of not being laid by a chicken.@
@Nooneyouknow You seem to be ignoring that we DO know what species chickens come from
because we can check their DNA and we can do the same for any creature.
They came from other chicken like species and those older species are still here along side the new chickens.
So evolution has been observed in many cases. Keep in mind that chickens are only one example. There is nothing to stop a mutation resulting in twin unicorns for example who are able to mate with each other
and instantly start a new species. Its far fetched but DNA makes it possible. As for variation's why jump to rabbits?
I doubt you could even tell the difference between chickens and their similar non-closely unrelated cousins.
Betting on DNA to NOT evolve is worse than your odds of winning the lottery.
You just cant win. I think we are missing a very important evolutionary question here.
How do you explain the natural selection path that leads multicellular organisms to create compacted miniaturised versions of themselves like eggs and baby offsprings?
To relate this to chickens it would be like having an 8 pound fryer and 1. 4 ton roaster) Still if you have a very large stool
(or very deep ditch) the two dogs could interbreed even though they have been separated geologically for a long time and have been bred to be distinct.
You wouldn't have a proto-chicken who lays an egg that'd be considered a chicken there'd be dozens
Well what did the first chicken come out of...Haha-Neanderchicken! Given that we know less than 1%of what there is to be known the missing 99%will always be filtered through ones belief in a creator.
The Chicken. God did not create imperfect nor incomplete things living or otherwise. Genesis is clear that he created man
and the beasts not embryos not individual cells and certainly not the primordial soup so fervently held to by evolution cultists lol.
At some point a chicken-like bird produced an offspring that due to some mutation in its DNA crossed the threshold from mere chicken likeness into chicken actuality.
Every chicken and the egg that it lays are the same species. There is no dividing line at a single generation.
Long before there were chickens there were fish and reptile species that reproduced via eggs. Thus the egg existed long before the chicken.
It's odd to me how anyone denies biological evolution as a fact an obvious one at this point in time.
Give humankind a hundred thousand years isolate groups over time and keep them isolated from each other eventually you have humans with different shades of skin different hair shapes different nostrils and lips stronger musculature some with higher intelligence potential different color eyes...
God made chickens. Put man in charge of chickens. Now we raise them eat them and their eggs.
Chicken came first. The Evolutionists say it is easier to believe the imaginary theory of a dead person which can't be proved
but one must believe. Takes just as much faith to believe in the Theory of evolution as it does to believe in the Theory of God Created Chickens.
The Wizards of Smart continue to propagate such nonsense and dupes keep following it. No matter how you slice it there was something before the supposed event then where did the dinosaurs come from?
Where did the actual earth that they are standing on come from? Where did the asteroid that flew across space come from?
God Created Chickens is a religion. If you believe in God Created Chickens then there is no amount of facts
or proof that will dissuade your belief. So Evolutionist have created their own religion with their own Gods (Magic Goo Creators) with their own Profits (Al gore) and their own Apocalypse (End of Time.
/i-think-i-did-chicken -or-egg-came-first-tshirt. jp p
#Are Birds Evolving To Not Get Hit By Cars? If you've ever had the soul-crushing misfortune of hitting a bird
while speeding down the road you can at least take heart in the fact that some birds are on the whole getting better at dodging them.
Whiter rabbits will always do better in snow than black rabbits shorter-legged boars will always do better in denser jungles) The still unproven part of the evolutionary theory (it's still a theory) is Macro Evolution.
Now modern man can digest foods? Why did modern man become such a risk taker? Why did modern man eyes become smaller?
Now modern man can not digest as many natural foods and can't fight parasits or infection as well.@
Now modern man can not digest as many natural foods and can't fight parasits or infection as well.
This requires more food/energy and leaves less of the brain available for higher cognitive functions.
#Your Complete Guide To Chocolate Flavors Infographic Sean Seidell graphic designer and flavor-visualizer has made an infographic about just about all of the world's most wonderful things--cheese whiskey coffee beer.
Seidell spent three weeks delving into the complicated world of single-origin cacao using information culled from Chocolate Science and Technology by Emmanuel Afoakwa a professor of food science at the University of Ghana.
whereas a Forastero from Sà £o Tomã  and Prã  ncipe will overwhelm you with a whirlwind of fruity bitter spicy cocoa and grassy flavors.
It's apparently a much more common chocolate flavor than you'd expect showing up in the Dominican republic's Criollo Forastero and Ecuador's Arriba Nacional as well.
and go get yourself some real chocolate. a
#Raid Your Kitchen To Build This Potato chip Speakerin 1921 two scientists made the first modern loudspeaker out of magnets wire and paper.
A potato chip works as a sound-emitting diaphragm here but other rigid foods work just as well.
grooves me she's a mass of class a real gas My one and only potato chip She's my potato chip She's my potato chip She's my potato chip whoa She's my potato chipa potato chip works as a sound-emitting diaphragm here but other rigid foods work
but we also used a paper plate and a piece of swiss cheese and a tortilla chip.
We thought the piece of cheese was a little too much so we tried one with just the coil
#The Science Of Soda Sizesas we either celebrate or mourn the New york Supreme court's striking down of the soda size limit in New york city let's take a moment to look at the psychology of portion sizes which is truly weird.
An overwhelming number of studies shows that people seem to base how much they eat on the amount of food
or drink they're given not how full they actually are. And portion sizes of course have increased dramatically over the past few decades.
In 2006 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a document about research into portion sizes.
Experiments with mac and cheese sandwiches pasta entrees potato chip bags bags of popcorn and other food all showed that people ate more when given more.
In the potato chip study people didn't adjust their intake at dinner after eating a larger bag of chips.
even if you don't choose it makes that large frappe seem reasonable. There's still an open question on
whether scientifically a soda size limit would work to reduce obesity rates and the financial and health costs of obesity.
And how much sugary drinks contribute to obesity by themselves is uncertain. Slate's Dan Engber--also a contributor to this publication--analyzed the science of linking sweet drinks to weight gain
and found that the studies are unsure. Then again the most unsure studies were supported by grants from the beverage industry.
People need to eat less sh*tty foods. Soda is a good place to start nothing but empty calories
and there are some not so great relationships between High Fructose Corn syrup and appetite. This is something you cant legislate away unfortunately...
Good intentions but poor execution. I wholeheartedly agree with you Wanamingo. The psychology of it all can be argued with our individual freedoms.
However we must be prepared to reap the consequences of our actions or inactions. Especially when it comes to our portion sizes.
when given more but no one is removing someone's choice to purchase a smaller soda
whether this will reduce obesity (rationing food would do that). The question is whether it should be a law.
or selling a 22 ounce Pepsi?@@Wanamingo: There is chemically no difference between the sugars in honey and the high fructose corn syrup.
Honey has some impurities in it (bacteria pollen other bee-related things) but it is otherwise the same.
I can see for a consumer to purchase a larger drink. First there's the thought of planning for the future
-If I buy the small drink now I'm going to run out the larger drink will last longer.
I can pay (typical fast food soft drink prices) $1. 29 for a 16oz $1. 39 for a 20oz or $1. 49 for that 32 oz.
The only thing restricting drink size does for me is make me run back and forth for more refills
but down here in Texas we have self service drink fountains and establishments without exception (so far as
I've known) willing to refill water tea coffee or any provided soft drink endlessly (within reason).@
@ppardee Laws are enforced not all with violence generally only violent crime is replied to with violence.
And there's a lot of discarded food around the subway to compete with. New york times As this chemical melts and gets into the water system how will it effect humans?
and throws food and drinks on the tracks. Also the current situation of sanitation on the platform is still very poor.
The rodents will always eat people's hot dog buns and chips and pretzels before they eat a waxy rodenticide.
The second problem is this will just work on the female rats. I think the city needs to look deeper into other preventive ways of avoiding a rise in the rat population in NYC.
and throws food and drinks on the tracks. While that certainly happens I think it's more from a few bad apples than the public at large.
If there is a lot of food around any method that only kills most of the rats will have no effect at all.
what happens to the food? Mice eat it? Insects s
#How To Build A 2, 073-Foot Skyscraperwhen it opens in 2014 the Shanghai Tower won't just be the world's second-tallest building.
The structure works like a wedding cake in nine sections says Dennis C. K. Poon an engineer with the firm Thornton Tomasetti which worked on the building.
and restaurants making it a sort of vertical neighborhood. The tower has two glass facades one inside the other essentially a tube within a tube.
In 2009 US AIRWAYS flight 1549 made a crash landing in the Hudson river after geese knocked out both engines.
It's incredibly unlikely that model airplanes will regularly pose as great a threat as geese
I won't set foot on a flight without at least 3 drinks. Even when I do the driving.
like a pig duck! hung a king in iraq! on hoods IN HOODS! PROTECTORATES! CEASERS VALKRYS!
YOUR GOOSES ARE COOKED! BARAC OBAMA! AND YOUR JOE BUSH SHOE NASANORAD AND THREATEN INWARDAND MUNITION ON ALL UNITEDSTATES CITIZENS!
BETWEEN THE BOB HOPE U s. O. OLD CELLULOID MESS HALLLINES! AN OLD NIXON C i a. VEIT NAMRYAN CAMERA SPY DRONE'S!
And this week news broke that someone launched a class-action lawsuit against the company for watering down its beer.
The basis of that lawsuit as far as I can tell rests on the claims from former Anheuser-busch employees that the beer is diluted just before bottling suggesting that there's less alcohol in the bottle/can than what is stated on the package.
My colleague Paul and I decided to run some tests this week on some of the beers named in the lawsuit--Budweiser Bud Ice
if we could detect unusually low alcohol content. Paul has a refractometer whereas Team Beersci kicks it old school with a hydrometer.
Beer people will already see the pitfalls of these approaches: One needs to know the pre-fermentation values (gravity
or Brix) of the beer in order to figure out the eventual ABV. But putzing about on the Internet at least in the case of the gravities gives one a very general idea of
what the original gravity of the King of Beers is supposed to be. The principle behind calculating ABV using density is pretty simple:
solutions with a lot of sugar in it are denser than solutions that don't have a lot of sugar.
So the brewer tests the density of the beer before adding yeast then tests it again after fermentation is finished.
By calculating how much sugar was metabolized by the yeast one can roughly calculate the alcohol by volume.
what is stated on the can of Budweiser: depending on OG we got ABVS of between 4. 8 and 5. 1%.That lower end does jibe with the lawsuit's claim that the beer is watered down by three to eight percent
--but as you can tell with the data spread my numbers are not sturdy enough to be used in court for either side of the debate
and we didn't even both measuring the Bud Ice values. Happily for us (and apparently Anheuser-busch) White Labs of San diego also tested AB's beer including Budweiser Bud Light Lime and Michelob Ultra right out of the packaging.
White Labs for those who aren't into brewing is an independent company who sells yeast strains and a variety of analytical services to wine and beer makers.
White Labs'method which uses a precise near-infrared laser spectrometer to directly measure the amount of ethanol in a sample is more precise than my kludgy hydrometer reading
and home brewers so that everyone with $100 can test for what big breweries routinely do:
According to NPR (who commissioned the tests) and a White Labs analytical lab employee Kara Taylor the Anheuser-busch beers all had the proper amount of alcohol by volume.
For example cans of Budweiser say that the beer is 5%ABV; a can of it tested to be 4. 99%ABV.
Why the plaintiff's lawyers couldn't manage to pony up $100 of their own to get the offending beer tested before launching the lawsuit is beyond
As for the idea of adding water to beer to dilute it--that's a pretty typical practice even for homebrewers
but before we pitch the yeast we add another two gallons of water to the fermenting bucket to bring the beer up to the final five-gallon volume.
For larger breweries more-concentrated worts and beers mean that one can brew a lot of strong beer then dilute it to the proper ABV at bottling.
This is especially useful in a beer like Budweiser (a light American lager that uses a lot of adjunct such as rice and corn)
Out of curiosity I tasted the Budweiser that didn't get used in our hydrometer test as I haven't had the beer in many years--certainly not since
I a comment on the NPR article on the testing of Anheuser-busch beer that seems rather difficult to genuinely fight.
Among other things I asked what proof is there that the can of beer they supplied for testing wasn't specifically manufactured with a correct alcohol content just for the testing?
In fact if you look at the NPR article you will see a deliberately tiny photograph of results of supposed professional testing of Anheuser-busch beer by the ASBC Beer-4e method.
and Beer-4e seems one of the methods used by White Labs supposedly But if you look at asbcnet. org ASBC's official website you weill not be able to call up Beer-4e. the fact is independent in testing circles is a joke.
It's an ugly secret of the legal practice that a staple of injury suits is the defendant calling up
There is no such thing as a legitimate independent lab they're all on the take to tell you genetically modified food doesn't contain cyanide
@julianpenrod There is no such thing as a legitimate independent lab they're all on the take to tell you genetically modified food doesn't contain cyanide
but genetically modified food doesn't contain cyanide there isn't radioactive waste in the groudwater near my home
Where is Scythelord's proof that genetically modified foods don't contain cyanide. A herd of cattle was killed by cyanide gas produced by genetially modified grass in Texas in June of last year.
#Low-Fat, Nonfat, Gluten-Free: How The Government Influences Health Claims On Packaged Food Noticed a lot of new gluten-free
and no trans fat snacks in your grocery store lately? It's not just you. A new study from the U s. Department of agriculture found that gluten
and trans fat labels are the quickest-growing categories of food-packaging claims. Also hot now:
Claims about antioxidants and omega-3 fatty acids. The USDA has tracked apparently health and nutrition claims on every single new packaged food introduced between 1989 and 2010.
That's a lot of food labels yo. The results offer a quantitative look at food trends in the U s. over time.
They also show that the government can have a huge influence on what gets sold.
Shifts in packaging claims happened right alongside legislation about what companies can can't and must say about their products.
The biggest piece of legislation that passed during the USDA study was the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990
which mandated the nutrition-facts label every packaged food item carries today and set rules regulating
what exactly counts as low fat high fiber and other claims. The act appeared to effectively combat false advertising the study's author economist Stephen Martinez writes.
Between 1989 and 2001 the percentage of new packages that included health and nutrition claims went down overall with the steepest decline seen in food categories such as oils
and cooking spray--and baked goods. Meanwhile for some categories of food--fruits and vegetables for instance--the number of claims went up.
The results were just what the Department of agriculture wanted to see. The post-NLEA environment was successful in inducing greater health focus in advertising for the foods targeted for increased consumption such as fruit
and vegetables compared to foods targeted for reduced consumption such as fats and oils Martinez writes.
Since 2001 the number of health claims on packages has gone up again. Martinez attributes that to companies trying to market to people's increased awareness of health issues
In 2010 43 percent of new foods had some kind of nutrition claim. On average foods with at least one claim were actually healthier than packaged foods in general Martinez found.
Foods with claims also tended to sell better. In another example of how much legislation can affect food Martinez looked at
what happened after the Food and Drug Administration required trans fat labeling starting in 2006.
By 2010 no trans fats was the fifth most popular nutrition claim on new packaged foods
even though no packages in 2001 said anything about trans fats. Meanwhile Martinez's tables and charts of top claims on packages over time are fascinating (see one example below.
You can see the appearance of the low-fat craze in the 1990s the popularity of the Atkins diet in the early 2000s and the gluten-free fad right now.
I don't know about you but I've got friends who went through all three diets.
Why isn't ANYONE exporting this valuable information to the third world? From what we've been taught feeding skinny kids Happy Meals
& large cola after 6pm will fatten up our little orphins around the world quicker than anything.
And it was under our noses the entire time! As a Celiac I kind of resent your comment that being gluten free is a fad.
Could it possibly be that wheat has become so gentically altered more and more of our systems can no longer handle it?
Please support my petition for the Girl scouts to sell a gluten free and allergen free cookie.
and search for girl scouts gluten free cookiei completely agree and side with shadow it's not a fad at all Wheat sucks becaus of generations of genetic enigeering to wheat The number of people diagnosed with Celiac disease is skyrocketing The gluten free market a couple years ago was worth half a million
and now it's worth billions because of so many new customers Fotobum really???I am very allergic to wheat for instance
if their is a trace of wheat in barbecue sauce and I eat it! I get get server Symtoms.
I don't have problems with gluten-freers that just leaves more for the rest of us.
though the whole nutrition/spiritual-enlightenment/body-worship/miracle-food/demon-food thing has gone off the deep end with no end in sight t
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011