!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
I answer it with evolution, so the egg came first, and the first chicken came from an egg laid by something very close to, but not quite, a chicken.
But it also makes me wonder: How far apart in mutations does something have to be before it is considered an entirely new thing?
The egg came first. Mutations happen in the production of gametes, or sex cells, so a proto-chicken would have produced a slightly mutated egg that turned out to be a chicken.
Accurate, but of course the real thing to note is in evolution, our lines and definitions of what a chicken is... is especially undefined. we just draw the line and call a particular creature a chicken... which is significantly more similar to the proto-chicken than a modern chicken is.
Dinosaurs laid eggs, and chickens did not come before dinosaurs. Eggs came first.
Its that simple
ah yeah quite true, if the question is egg's in general, then yeah, eggs existed before the first land walking creatures. I always assumed the question is meaning a chicken egg specifically. Of which the answer is still the same as, as assuming we as humans pick an arbitrary line to draw for being a chicken. Obviously before the first chicken exists, a creature just short of meeting the qualifications for a chicken, would have layed an egg of what we define as a chicken, to create the first "chicken".
I always struggled with the question until I thought about the question itself. Once I realized I was being asked: what came first? The answer became clear
The question is an illusion, there is no chicken
Another way to frame this is that, you can't just magically create a singular being that's a new species because it wouldn't have anything to breed with. So it's a long term gradual change of a complete population into what we know as a chicken today.
I've always just answered with: "One day the egg that was laid hatched into a chicken."
The egg.. laid by a bird that wasn't a chicken
Neil D Tyson
The explanation goes as follows:
Since any offspring is never going to be 100% genetically similar to its parent, eventually an offsprings genome will mutate into what we humans would classify as a chicken within our "scientific" definitions.
Imo the concept of a chicken is an illusion. It's a bird thing that I can eat, and sometimes they're really nice and lay eggs, that's what a chicken is.
The egg is the only possible correct answer to this.
Modern chickens didn't exist until something like 10,000 years ago. The egg was a key development in allowing animals to live on land, and first came about somewhere around 300 million years ago.
But if you want to narrow it down to just chicken eggs, then you have it right. The immediate predecessor to the first thing that can be called a 'chicken' laid a chicken egg from which hatched a chicken.
The egg absolutely came first.
Ah, but is a chicken egg a chicken egg because it came out of a chicken or because a chicken comes out of it?
That is the real question.
This conversation has been swirling since forever, and the answer is that both came first
It really comes down to the fact that we have arbitrary scientific conventions, and we have to slot everything into its little hole
It is impossible to make the determination, outside of the human perspective, which came first
Eggs in the morning, fried chicken for dinner so eggs come first. That was the question, right?
the chicken and the egg are laying in bed sharing a post-coital cigarette.
the chicken says, "Well I guess that answers that question."
egg was being used by a lot of lizards and sea life long before chickens came around
Eggs existed for millions of years before chickens, why is this still a debate?
I think there's an implicit "chicken" before the egg: what was first, a chicken or a [chicken] egg?
According to Last-Thursdayism, both came at the same time - last Thursday, when the universe was created
Every individual is different than their parents. We don't see large scale changes from one species to another from a single generation, but from population changes over huge amounts of time.
Sometimes there's a mutation that allows previous features to come back in an individual showing the history. Look up images of chickens with teeth.
Chickens as we know them now in a farm didn't exist until we did our own evolutionary selection to change them to something that would have more meat on them by picking the preferred ones. Dogs are another very obvious demonstration of that. Dogs came from a now extinct ancestor of wolves, so you can carry the same fallacy, when did the wolf become a dog? It wasn't the first ones that were lured in by a warm place and food, was it the second generation?
Evolution doesn't have clear lines, humans just like to classify things. It's a lot easier to do that with species separated by millions of years because the details have changed enough.
You have the correct answer, echoed by others. If one could draw a sharp line, then we would see proto-chickens laying eggs containing chickens and then some of those chickens laying eggs containing proto-chickens, back and forth for many generations. The combination of alleles that qualifies an organism as a chicken would arise and then often be reversed by recombination in the next generation. Eventually as more and more of the population has chicken allele combinations, the percentage of chickens born would grow as the reversals became less numerous than the forward conversions.
Now, what defines whether an egg is a proto-chicken egg or a chicken egg? An egg is formed by the action of maternal genes, so it will have the characteristics given to it by the proto-chicken mother. But if you just define an egg that hatches a chicken as a chicken egg (rather than an egg laid by a chicken), the egg always comes first.
In one sense, the egg. Animals had been laying eggs for millions of years before anything like a chicken evolved.
If we're limiting our scope to just chicken eggs though, things get a little murkier.
When we talk about chicken eggs, are we talking about eggs laid by a chicken, or are we talking about eggs from which a chicken can hatch? Or do both need to be true for it to truly be a chicken egg?
In the first and last case, the chicken obviously needs to come first, a non-chicken can't lay a chicken egg if that's the criteria you're going by.
That middle ground though is interesting.
The chicken is descended from the red junglefowl. Look up some pictures, they're pretty damn chicken-y, I might even say they may look even more like a chicken than some modern chicken breeds. If I was out walking around and a junglefowl ran across the street in front of me, I'd probably chuckle to myself while I pondered the age-old question of "why did the chicken cross the road?" If one showed up in my friends' backyard flock of assorted chicken breeds, it wouldn't look at all out of place.
But it is not a chicken.
Chickens, however, are junglefowl. We consider them to be a subspecies of junglefowl- Gallus gallus domesticus
Chickens did not emerge in a single instant. It took many years of selective breeding and evolution for the modern chicken to come into being. Countless generations of junglefowl gradually becoming more chicken-y until the modern chicken emerged.
At one point in time, a bird was hatched that checked all of the boxes for us to call it a chicken instead of a junglefowl. The egg it hatched from was laid by a bird that was just on the other side of the arbitrary line from being a chicken. Unless you sequenced the two birds genomes you would probably be pretty hard-pressed to say which was the chicken and which was the junglefowl.
So the first chicken hatched from an egg said by a junglefowl.
However, that is one true chicken in a flock of not-quite-chickens. Odds are that chicken did not breed with another true chicken, but instead one of those near-chicken junglefowl. So its eggs would not hatch into a true chicken, but instead a chicken-junglefowl hybrid.
And there was probably a long period of time where things teetered on that line, the occasional true chicken hatched, and then laid eggs that hatched into non-chickens, those non-chickens getting closer and closer to the line over many generations.
Until finally it happened. Two true chickens bred, and lay an egg that also matches into a true chicken. The first chicken hatched from an egg laid by a chicken.
But again you'd be pretty hard pressed to pinpoint which bird that was in the flock. It was probably a wholly unremarkable bird that looked pretty much the same as all of the chickens and non-chicken junglefowl around it.
The lines we draw separating different species and subspecies are pretty arbitrary. It's more for our convenience to categorize things than it is to reflect any absolute truth about the animals around us. That line could have been drawn just about anywhere in the history of chickens and it would still be valid.
There's also potentially a nature vs nurture angle here. Chickens are social creatures who raise their young, they're not running on pure instinct, to some extent they learn how to be a chicken from other chickens. A true chicken raised by junglefowl may act more like a junglefowl than a chicken in some ways, and vice versa. Is that important when determining what the bird is? When the differences between them are so small, I think it might be. As they say, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
So there's perhaps an argument to be made that maybe the first true chicken didn't appear until at least a generation or two after that first chicken hatched from an egg laid by a chicken. After all, if the young aren't being raised by and around other chickens, maybe they're not really chickens.
The chicken came first. Chicken-ness begins at conception.
It's a language question, not a biological one.
The answer is "depends on your definition of chicken and egg".
"Chicken" isn't a thing that exists in nature, it's a category humans assign to some birds.
This is the correct answer.
are you drunk?
I mean... yes, but how could you tell?
drunk too
Define "chicken"
That's a statement not a question
Anyway, the hen came first which then traveled back in time to lay the egg first, so it then could hatch into the chicken.
The chicken. When it decided to cross the road
Eggs predate chickens. Chicken eggs evolved simultaneously with chickens. There was no first chicken, nor first chicken egg.
That's not how evolution works. The chicken egg did come before the chicken, because that's where mutations occur.
But chicken are the same species as their wild counterpart, the red jungle fowl. And there's such a diversity of them, some may be more closely related to a wild jungle fowl than to another variety of domestic chicken. Therefore, it seems to me that what defines a chicken (as opposed to a jungle fowl) isn't a specific genetic mutation, but the fact that it's domesticated. And it seems to me that capturing a live jungle fowl would've been easier than hatching an egg you've harvested. The fowl that first laid an egg in captivity may thus already be considered a chicken, although it was born a red jungle fowl, hatched from a red jungle fowl's egg; and only then it laid the first chicken's egg.
No, that is 100% not how evolution works. No individual has ever laid an egg of a different species. One mutation doesn’t make a non-chicken a chicken. Chickens evolved from their ancestors slowly over many many generations. It’s like how you can’t change one word and make a language a different language, but if you change enough words, it becomes a different language.
Let me put it another way. If you take a modern chicken back in time 50,000 years, it could probably breed with a chicken from then. But if you take it back maybe 100,000 years, maybe it can’t breed with a chicken from then. But if you take the chicken from 50kya, it could breed with the chicken from 100kya. So are they all the same species? Are they different species? Are they all chickens?
Humans like to put things in little boxes with clear delineations, but that’s not how nature works. Species don’t come to be from one mutation. They evolve as the accumulation of many many mutations over many many generations. There’s no point at which you can say that child is a different species than their parent.
I'm not saying some completely different bird laid an egg that contained a chicken. The change may be gradual, but the mutations still happen in the eggs. The first chicken or chickens were hatched, not transformed by radioactive goo.
And what I’m telling you is that there was no first chicken, just like there was no first Spanish speaker. Species don’t evolve that way.
Doesn't the saying go 'there's a first for everything'?
Just because it’s a saying doesn’t mean it’s true for everything. Every child is the same species as its parent.
Sure, and since that means that there can be no new species unless they magically appear, there is only one species on this planet. Just very.. varying
Ok, let me put it another way. Green and red are clearly different colors, right? But if you make a gradient where the green smoothly transitions to the red, there isn’t one single point where it changes from “green” to “red”. This doesn’t mean that the two colors on the ends aren’t completely different colors, it means that when you look at every pixel, they’re almost exactly the same color as the pixel next to them.
Different species exist. Speciation is a thing. I’m not claiming otherwise. But creatures don’t birth a species other than their own. It takes many many many generations over eons of time for a population to speciate. Speciation is something that happens to populations, not individuals.
Funny you mention colours, you can very easily determine the point where it's more green than red.
Maybe if you examine the hex codes, but what if it’s paint? And what do you call that color in the middle? Is it green? Or red? Or neither? Something in between? What if the lighting conditions mess with it?
Species aren’t measured digitally, so the metaphor isn’t perfect, but I hope you can see what I mean by it. My bigger point is that speciation happens on a population level, not an individual level. Parents don’t have children of a different species. Populations evolve into different species.
Trust me, when it comes down to chickens, the chickens always come first.
Why? Because they are vicious little buggers, and if you try to make them wait they will eat you.
"Oh, hello monkey, is that a treat for me in your hand? How lovely, nom nom nom. What? I took your finger with the lovely dried bug? So sorry. Oh, hello monkey, is that an open wound in your hand for me? Nomnomnom. What? I'm not supposed to devour the flesh from your bones? So sorry. Oh, hello monkey, is that a bone sticking out from where your finger used to be...
You get the idea.
So, I can say with authority that if the egg had come first, the chicken would have eaten it.
nope its the 'chicken'; in that the process of moving to an egg-encased zygote evolved after the organism that would become a chicken already existed.