▲ 11 ▼ Was there ever a solid or scientific answers to which came first chicken or the egg? (lemmy.world) submitted 1 month ago by Patnou@lemmy.world to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world 35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children) The egg is the same organism as the individual that hatches out of it. It’s like saying “which came first, the infant or the adult”? permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Patnou@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 1 month ago Well now that you mention it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] over_clox@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) Donkeys and horses don't even have the same number of chromosomes. But they can breed, which creates a mule (which is usually infertile, but not always). Just because animals breed doesn't make the offspring the same species. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago Just because animals breed doesn’t make the offspring the same species. Species is a construct and falls apart very quickly outside of the common barnyard and kidsbook animals. It can be a useful construct for understanding some things, but its not a "thing" that inherently exists in biology. We can impose an idea on organisms, but they have no obligation to follow it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) No, but the fallacy is in thinking the new species appears when the egg hatches, rather than when it’s fertilized. The egg is already the new offspring. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] over_clox@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Okay, let's back it up a bit.. Unfertilized eggs do not create offspring. They either create menstrual blood/waste, or breakfast food, depending on the type of creature, mammal or non-mammal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Every egg that hatches was previously fertilized (at least for sexually-reproducing organisms). The animal that hatches from the fertilized egg became a genetically distinct organism when its egg was fertilized, not when the egg was hatched or laid. In the case of chickens, eggs are fertilized (if at all) before being laid; and when we talk about “unfertilized eggs”, we usually mean eggs that were laid without being fertilized. Such eggs were not part of the discussion until you introduced them. permalink fedilink source parent [–] over_clox@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago (1 child) I ate two fried unfertilized eggs just a few hours ago. Unfertilized eggs literally never create offspring. Maybe take a sex-ed class? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 child) What’s your point? Unfertilized eggs don’t hatch, so they’re not part of the scenario in question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] over_clox@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago* (3 children) What's your point? Literal, and wrong, quote from you.... The [unfertilized] egg is already the new offspring. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago A quote isn’t “literal” if you insert a word that completely negates its meaning. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago A for enthusiasm, F for reading comprehension... permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) when it’s fertilized. You seem to have missed that part. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] over_clox@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) Did you even read their comment? https://lemmy.world/comment/24532177 No, but the fallacy is in thinking the new species appears when the egg hatches, rather than when it’s fertilized. The egg is already the new offspring. This is completely incorrect. Only a fertilized egg can create offspring. But that is not what they said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 child) It was clear as day to me that they were talking about the fertilization process, which implies that they meant a fertilized egg. It's not their fault you misread it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Patnou@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 1 month ago Well now that you mention it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) Donkeys and horses don't even have the same number of chromosomes. But they can breed, which creates a mule (which is usually infertile, but not always). Just because animals breed doesn't make the offspring the same species. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago Just because animals breed doesn’t make the offspring the same species. Species is a construct and falls apart very quickly outside of the common barnyard and kidsbook animals. It can be a useful construct for understanding some things, but its not a "thing" that inherently exists in biology. We can impose an idea on organisms, but they have no obligation to follow it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) No, but the fallacy is in thinking the new species appears when the egg hatches, rather than when it’s fertilized. The egg is already the new offspring. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] over_clox@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Okay, let's back it up a bit.. Unfertilized eggs do not create offspring. They either create menstrual blood/waste, or breakfast food, depending on the type of creature, mammal or non-mammal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Every egg that hatches was previously fertilized (at least for sexually-reproducing organisms). The animal that hatches from the fertilized egg became a genetically distinct organism when its egg was fertilized, not when the egg was hatched or laid. In the case of chickens, eggs are fertilized (if at all) before being laid; and when we talk about “unfertilized eggs”, we usually mean eggs that were laid without being fertilized. Such eggs were not part of the discussion until you introduced them. permalink fedilink source parent [–] over_clox@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago (1 child) I ate two fried unfertilized eggs just a few hours ago. Unfertilized eggs literally never create offspring. Maybe take a sex-ed class? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 child) What’s your point? Unfertilized eggs don’t hatch, so they’re not part of the scenario in question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] over_clox@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago* (3 children) What's your point? Literal, and wrong, quote from you.... The [unfertilized] egg is already the new offspring. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago A quote isn’t “literal” if you insert a word that completely negates its meaning. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago A for enthusiasm, F for reading comprehension... permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) when it’s fertilized. You seem to have missed that part. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] over_clox@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) Did you even read their comment? https://lemmy.world/comment/24532177 No, but the fallacy is in thinking the new species appears when the egg hatches, rather than when it’s fertilized. The egg is already the new offspring. This is completely incorrect. Only a fertilized egg can create offspring. But that is not what they said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 child) It was clear as day to me that they were talking about the fertilization process, which implies that they meant a fertilized egg. It's not their fault you misread it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago Just because animals breed doesn’t make the offspring the same species. Species is a construct and falls apart very quickly outside of the common barnyard and kidsbook animals. It can be a useful construct for understanding some things, but its not a "thing" that inherently exists in biology. We can impose an idea on organisms, but they have no obligation to follow it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) No, but the fallacy is in thinking the new species appears when the egg hatches, rather than when it’s fertilized. The egg is already the new offspring. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] over_clox@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Okay, let's back it up a bit.. Unfertilized eggs do not create offspring. They either create menstrual blood/waste, or breakfast food, depending on the type of creature, mammal or non-mammal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Every egg that hatches was previously fertilized (at least for sexually-reproducing organisms). The animal that hatches from the fertilized egg became a genetically distinct organism when its egg was fertilized, not when the egg was hatched or laid. In the case of chickens, eggs are fertilized (if at all) before being laid; and when we talk about “unfertilized eggs”, we usually mean eggs that were laid without being fertilized. Such eggs were not part of the discussion until you introduced them. permalink fedilink source parent [–] over_clox@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago (1 child) I ate two fried unfertilized eggs just a few hours ago. Unfertilized eggs literally never create offspring. Maybe take a sex-ed class? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 child) What’s your point? Unfertilized eggs don’t hatch, so they’re not part of the scenario in question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] over_clox@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago* (3 children) What's your point? Literal, and wrong, quote from you.... The [unfertilized] egg is already the new offspring. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago A quote isn’t “literal” if you insert a word that completely negates its meaning. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago A for enthusiasm, F for reading comprehension... permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) when it’s fertilized. You seem to have missed that part. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] over_clox@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) Did you even read their comment? https://lemmy.world/comment/24532177 No, but the fallacy is in thinking the new species appears when the egg hatches, rather than when it’s fertilized. The egg is already the new offspring. This is completely incorrect. Only a fertilized egg can create offspring. But that is not what they said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 child) It was clear as day to me that they were talking about the fertilization process, which implies that they meant a fertilized egg. It's not their fault you misread it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago permalink fedilink source parent
[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Okay, let's back it up a bit.. Unfertilized eggs do not create offspring. They either create menstrual blood/waste, or breakfast food, depending on the type of creature, mammal or non-mammal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Every egg that hatches was previously fertilized (at least for sexually-reproducing organisms). The animal that hatches from the fertilized egg became a genetically distinct organism when its egg was fertilized, not when the egg was hatched or laid. In the case of chickens, eggs are fertilized (if at all) before being laid; and when we talk about “unfertilized eggs”, we usually mean eggs that were laid without being fertilized. Such eggs were not part of the discussion until you introduced them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Every egg that hatches was previously fertilized (at least for sexually-reproducing organisms). The animal that hatches from the fertilized egg became a genetically distinct organism when its egg was fertilized, not when the egg was hatched or laid. In the case of chickens, eggs are fertilized (if at all) before being laid; and when we talk about “unfertilized eggs”, we usually mean eggs that were laid without being fertilized. Such eggs were not part of the discussion until you introduced them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] over_clox@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago (1 child) I ate two fried unfertilized eggs just a few hours ago. Unfertilized eggs literally never create offspring. Maybe take a sex-ed class? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 child) What’s your point? Unfertilized eggs don’t hatch, so they’re not part of the scenario in question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] over_clox@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago* (3 children) What's your point? Literal, and wrong, quote from you.... The [unfertilized] egg is already the new offspring. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago A quote isn’t “literal” if you insert a word that completely negates its meaning. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago A for enthusiasm, F for reading comprehension... permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) when it’s fertilized. You seem to have missed that part. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] over_clox@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) Did you even read their comment? https://lemmy.world/comment/24532177 No, but the fallacy is in thinking the new species appears when the egg hatches, rather than when it’s fertilized. The egg is already the new offspring. This is completely incorrect. Only a fertilized egg can create offspring. But that is not what they said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 child) It was clear as day to me that they were talking about the fertilization process, which implies that they meant a fertilized egg. It's not their fault you misread it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 child) What’s your point? Unfertilized eggs don’t hatch, so they’re not part of the scenario in question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] over_clox@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago* (3 children) What's your point? Literal, and wrong, quote from you.... The [unfertilized] egg is already the new offspring. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago A quote isn’t “literal” if you insert a word that completely negates its meaning. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago A for enthusiasm, F for reading comprehension... permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) when it’s fertilized. You seem to have missed that part. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] over_clox@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) Did you even read their comment? https://lemmy.world/comment/24532177 No, but the fallacy is in thinking the new species appears when the egg hatches, rather than when it’s fertilized. The egg is already the new offspring. This is completely incorrect. Only a fertilized egg can create offspring. But that is not what they said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 child) It was clear as day to me that they were talking about the fertilization process, which implies that they meant a fertilized egg. It's not their fault you misread it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago permalink fedilink source parent
[–] over_clox@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago* (3 children) What's your point? Literal, and wrong, quote from you.... The [unfertilized] egg is already the new offspring. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago A quote isn’t “literal” if you insert a word that completely negates its meaning. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago A for enthusiasm, F for reading comprehension... permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) when it’s fertilized. You seem to have missed that part. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] over_clox@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) Did you even read their comment? https://lemmy.world/comment/24532177 No, but the fallacy is in thinking the new species appears when the egg hatches, rather than when it’s fertilized. The egg is already the new offspring. This is completely incorrect. Only a fertilized egg can create offspring. But that is not what they said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 child) It was clear as day to me that they were talking about the fertilization process, which implies that they meant a fertilized egg. It's not their fault you misread it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago A quote isn’t “literal” if you insert a word that completely negates its meaning. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago A for enthusiasm, F for reading comprehension... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) when it’s fertilized. You seem to have missed that part. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] over_clox@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) Did you even read their comment? https://lemmy.world/comment/24532177 No, but the fallacy is in thinking the new species appears when the egg hatches, rather than when it’s fertilized. The egg is already the new offspring. This is completely incorrect. Only a fertilized egg can create offspring. But that is not what they said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 child) It was clear as day to me that they were talking about the fertilization process, which implies that they meant a fertilized egg. It's not their fault you misread it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago permalink fedilink source parent
[–] over_clox@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) Did you even read their comment? https://lemmy.world/comment/24532177 No, but the fallacy is in thinking the new species appears when the egg hatches, rather than when it’s fertilized. The egg is already the new offspring. This is completely incorrect. Only a fertilized egg can create offspring. But that is not what they said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 child) It was clear as day to me that they were talking about the fertilization process, which implies that they meant a fertilized egg. It's not their fault you misread it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 child) It was clear as day to me that they were talking about the fertilization process, which implies that they meant a fertilized egg. It's not their fault you misread it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago permalink fedilink source parent