Well apparently there's now an answer...?
British scientists claim to have solved the scientific, philosophical mystery
![]()
Well apparently there's now an answer...?
British scientists claim to have solved the scientific, philosophical mystery
![]()
so where did the chicken come from?
tesco![]()
Evolution of another winged animal.
Lays a clutch of eggs, genetic mutation in the egg, causes chicken-like bird, chicken-like bird breeds with other birds, the predominantly chicken characteristics present in the DNA cause the more chicken-like birds to prosper.
More chicken-like bird love-ins cause chicken.
Therefore Egg came first as it was the genetic mutation which caused the chicken.
That's my take on it...
Common sense really![]()
oolon (16-07-2010)
Yeah logically I came to the same conclusion as Tak Tak
however if the question was what came first the bird that laid the egg or the egg that that bird came from I have no idea :L
I've always gone with the egg being first, as it's a reptile egg.
I thought this "philosophical question" had long been laid to rest ala Tak Tak's answer. I remember reading this solution many years ago but as had been said, it's common sense if you think about it!
An Atlantean Triumvirate, Ghosts of the Past, The Centre Cannot Hold
The Pillars of Britain, Foundations of the Reich, Cracks in the Pillars.
My books are available here for Amazon Kindle. Feedback always welcome!
The probability of that actually occurring is virtually zero. For an animal to have that significant impact over an established species it would basically have to be a super duper bird, which would require a LOT more than just a random mutation which you are suggesting. It would have to be like exposed to the ooze which the Turtles were exposed to, to make them ninja.
Plus reptiles still produce reptiles. I haven't seen one of them produce a chicken. Eat it? So why didn't it before hand? Still only one of a kind.
Just like God created man first and then the sperm/egg, obviosuly the chicken came first and then the egg!
Obviously it's not just a case of a T-Rex mutated instantly into a chicken, that would be absurd (but incredibly awesome)
But if you take the theropoda as the basic structure, it's not entirely far off in terms of structure...
Air filled bones.
Tri-clawed foot.
Furcula.
Feathers/Avian incubation in off-spurts such as the Avialae.
Obviously the theropoda is quite a large group ranging from little 'uns to big buggers, although a giant chicken like El Pollo Diablo would be an immensely humorous outcome rather than the chickens that we do have today.
I'm not saying that it was a single mutation, i'm saying that lots of little mutations (possibly aided by mutagens such as the ooze) soon start to add up to something completely different.
It's what can be seen in most species anyway. Adapting to given scenarios and environments.
With the best example being diseases, if you take disease X which some forms can be deadly (due to drug resilience), if you treat and wipe-out the milder forms through use of drugs etc, you get one super-strain that will spread because you can't treat it effectivly.
The same with rats, we're now reaching the point that rats are becoming immune to alot of poisons, as if you poison all the rats in one area, and one rat is immune, that rat will be the one that mates, rather than competing, thusly the genes may pass-on to it's off-spring meaning that the poison is not useless and another needs to be used.
Even rotating the poison only slows down the inevitable...
If a genetic mutation is beneficial, and the particular animal thrives and passes on the genes, (i.e. A giraffes tongue, don't have the right tongue, you die, simple as...) which increase the spread of that particular genetic trait.
I don't think anyone on here believes that a single mutation from any animal caused a chicken to appear (or that it happened overnight).
So in terms of keeping thinks short and snappy, the aforementioned short version does nicely
Things change, mutations can enable the mutant to survive better thusly pass on the genes.
But little ones don't add up either. For an animal to survive or be better it has to be noticeable from the word go. If not, it will just continue to exist. Then to pass it on should it breed is another matter.
You have one sample with one genetic mutation. It breeds with its non mutant siblings. The likely hood of that mutation being passed on is again nearly zero. Unless that mutation has something to offer in survival or bettering the species, it will not be seen.
If I am correct in thinking, resistant bacteria are actually weaker than their normal non mutant strains. Why? Our drugs target specific sequences of DNA or maybe even synthesis of proteins to kill them off. If a mutation occurs in that bacteria where that DNA sequence is not there (or altered even by a nucleotide), then is it weaker or stronger? It has actually lost something not gained. Which is why our drugs are ineffective. So to produce new drugs, we need to target a different sequence. Resistance to drugs and poison is not a response like our immune system responds to invaders. The target site has changed so the drug cannot work.
All those examples you gave, they are still rats. They are still bacteria E.Coli or whatever. They haven't mutated into a different species. We are at fault for the misuse of drugs etc. So remember kids, ALWAYS finish your course of antibiotics.The species adapts to its environment, or dies off.
For a species to change into another, a large chunk of genetic material would have to be added. The amount needed for a significant change is mad. It cannot be done with small mutations alone. As we see in our world, just a small change even has consequences. Is more better? Well no, look at Downs Syndrome. An extra chromosome. More isn't always better.
I agree with what you are saying about super strains and super rats. Its just not enough to make them change into something different (i.e a species) from what they already are.
ANYWAY, it would be kinda cool to see a ninja chicken. Imagine one going round and liberating all of them from KFC.![]()
But that's what i'm saying, a Chicken isn't a massive change, all on the basics are there already, even a T-Rex has a remarkably similar structure to a chicken, swap it's (useless) arms for wings, and give it a few feathers and you have something that is very much chicken like.
It isn't a new species, it is merely improving a current one, a-la super rats.
If you then start at a branch which already has feathers and wings, getting to the chicken isn't that spectacular, it is just a series of small mutations brought on by the environmental conditions over an extended period of time (i.e. millions of years), et voila, it's a now a chicken.
The first comment on that page;
In other news, top American and European scientists, mathematicians, scholars, etc through years of vigorous research have concluded that the bird is greater or equal to the word.
MaddAussie (16-07-2010),TheAnimus (15-07-2010)
So what you are really saying is that although "an egg" played a part in the chicken's development it wasn't actually a chicken egg that produced the chicken.
Only after your "et voila" moment did the series of mutations become the chicken and therefore, having to become a chicken first before it could lay a chicken egg, you wholeheartedly agree that the Chicken came first?!!.![]()
I've always gone with: -
Between a chicken and a chicken egg; then the chicken.
Between a chicken and an egg; then the egg.
If you believe in creationism; then the chicken. (unless God grew it originally from an egg?)
The answer is obvious with a little thought; the egg came first. From a chicken to an egg, there is the potential for mutation, as it is a reproductive process where DNA can alter. However, from egg to chicken, it is merely a development of the same individual organism, hence the same DNA. It's just like a baby in the womb, and then out of it; exactly the same creature, just in a different location.
There also seems to be a concerning lack of knowledge about evolution in this thread. We would not have an instant "T-Rex to Chicken" mutation, it would happen incredibly gradually over millenia; so, there is in fact no point at which we can definitively say "This has become a chicken", but a series of organisms that slowly became more chicken-like.
![]()
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)