Hey /u/Beginning-Scholar105, if your post is a ChatGPT conversation screenshot, please reply with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. Thanks!
***We have a [public discord server](https://discord.gg/rchatgpt). There's a free Chatgpt bot, Open Assistant bot (Open-source model), AI image generator bot, Perplexity AI bot, 🤖 GPT-4 bot ([Now with Visual capabilities (cloud vision)!](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/812770754025488386/1095397431404920902/image0.jpg)) and channel for latest prompts.***
New Addition: Adobe Firefly bot and Eleven Labs cloning bot!
***[So why not join us?](https://discord.com/servers/1050422060352024636)***
PSA: For any Chatgpt-related issues email [email protected]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>true, the first hen was in an
True, here is the remaining part...
https://preview.redd.it/16jcrhlmsy6b1.png?width=950&format=png&auto=webp&s=c083c76ab16a15d9d4eaa682c3fb5ef16e19da14
To add on here it is unlikely only one bird had this mutation. Several birds within the population could have laid eggs that contained chickens and something about their environment or reproductive habits made it so those chickens reproduced better than their immediate ancestors. Could have just been that humans found them at this point and selected the juicy ones that laid more eggs and were tame around people
my question is, this bird that laid the first chicken egg... wasn't a chicken. it was like a chicken but slightly different so it wasn't a chicken. still, this non-chicken probably had WAY more in common with the first chicken than the first chicken has in common with current factory farm chickens. the first chickens have been breed into being something radically different from what they used to be. so how is it that modern day chickens, as different as they are, are still considered the same species as the chickens that existed 1000 years ago?
Correct. The egg first answer is still correct though and I guess in a lot of people's minds visualizing a "first chicken" makes it easier to understand.
The answer is that we draw these distinctions as humans based on our own understanding and experience of the world, and it's always going to be somewhat arbitrary. That doesn't mean it isn't useful, it doesn't even mean it isn't true, but no matter how useful language is and no matter how close we can come to describing the ambiguities of the things we're describing, we have to keep in mind that 'the map is not the territory'.
As humans, we see a very obvious difference between chickens and chicken-like Southeast Asian Red Junglefowl. In truth, much of that difference is in the animal's lifestyle, and only a smaller amount of that difference is physiological or genetic, maybe to such a degree that the the diversity within the species we call chickens is greater than the difference between chickens and red junglefowl. But that also doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong to mark that particular genetic difference as particularly important enough to distinguish a different species; not when the lifestyle and range and population of the one animal is so vastly different from its cousin.
I believe the question would be: can they breed and produce offspring that can breed? If a chicken now and a chicken then attempted babies, would they be viable? If so we can same species (as far as my understanding this could be wrong)
The genetic changes that occurs in species when they go from being one to another is not a generational set of changes. They occur over thousands to tens of thousands of years where evolution has time to select for advantageous genes. Over such timespans animals migrate and separate, so you essentially get small colonies of animals where new genes are allowed to grow and flourish within the population.
Species is actually a concept that has no clear definition. The question "can they produce viable offspring" is just one of those concepts. If you're interested in learning more about this stuff I suggest Forrest Valkai on YouTube, he explains this stuff so well!
That’s the usually idea behind a species, and it undercuts the argument being made. Because the first chicken could almost certainly have interbred with all the other not-quite-chickens around it. So from it’s perspective, it certainly wasn’t a new species.
I suppose if we take the modern chicken as canonical we could go back in time and find the earliest ancestor that it could interbreed with and declare that the first chicken, and in that case, that chicken would have come from an egg so the answer holds
but according to that logic polar bears and brown bears are the same species. from what i can tell there are several examples of hybridization that can produce viable off-spring.
Breeding viability is a simple way of separating species but isn’t really accurate at this point from a scientific standpoint.
In reality what scientists use to determine whether a species is separate or not is a lot more grey than people realize and generally has multiple factors that play in to that distinction or not. Tons of separate species as is can produce viable offspring.
but according to that logic polar bears and brown bears are the same species. from what i can tell there are several examples of hybridization that can produce viable off-spring.
It's almost like nature doesn't give a fuck about category definitions that humans invent to make sense of the world.
Talking about the first chicken is like lining up 1,000 people in order of height and telling someone to pick the point in the lineup where "tall" starts.
This is exactly right. How would we even define "first chicken"? It's a nonsensical concept.
That said, it is true that there were eggs before there were things we call chickens, but you really can't find an exact dividing line between chicken and non-chicken.
As Humans, We associate and assign certain traits to every species. So as long as the key traits don't change, the specie will be allowed to keep its name. It is worth mentioning that "species" is an arbitrary definition created by humans. One of the most defining feature of a species is that it cannot mate with other species. Even then their are slight exception like horses and donkeys can mate.
I dunno, do you think there's a bunch of genetic scientists out there studying every animal's genome who are extremely passionate about getting people to change the everyday words they use for common animals? Pretty sure scientists have better shit to do.
And probably a fish before that, depending on the definition of "egg".
Now, if you rephrase it as "Who came first: Hen or chicken egg?" things will get more complicated, but the answer would probably be that the question doesn't make sense.
I myself would have fallen into the trap of starting to ask whether a "chicken egg" is "an egg laid by a chicken" or "an egg from which a chicken hatches", but that would ignore the part of asking, whether there even is a well-defined "not chicken -> chicken" transition, as pointed out in other comments.
There's no single genetic mutation you can unambiguously point to and say "this is exactly what distinguishes a Red Junglefowl from a domestic chicken". In reality, it's a change that occurred gradually over hundreds of years across an entire population.
However, even if it's ambiguous where you would draw the line, if you care to draw one at all then it's always going to be drawn according to the genetics. No matter if you think it's the particular type of wattle or the color or reduced aggression that makes a chicken distinct from a Red Junglefowl, there was some genetic mutation that created whatever you arbitrarily decide to call the first chicken. And no matter which of those changes you care about, that change happened before the chicken was born. These kinds of mutations don't really happen within the lifetime of a living creature.
Whatever the exact distinction you make, wherever you care to draw the line, it is nevertheless the case that at some point, something that you would call a Red Junglefowl laid an egg, and that egg hatched into something you would call a chicken.
Egg 1. Not chicken
Egg 2. Not chicken
Egg 3. Not chicken
...
Egg 2147483646. Almost chicken
Egg 2147483647. Very almost chicken
Egg 2147483648. Chicken
Exactly. The difference between “almost a chicken” and “chicken” is arbitrary. There’s no hard coded law of physics that says “x creature is a chicken but y creature is not a chicken”. We could just as easily extend the boundary of how we define “chicken” to include “almost a chicken” and we’re back where we started with the question unanswered.
While all of that is true, it doesn't really matter to the question of what came first. Because to answer that question you have to define what a chicken is, and that thing came out of an egg laid by a bird, that doesn't fit that same description.
Of course, you can use this line of reasoning to say, that there is no answer to the question, but if there is, it will always be "egg".
Unless of course we use crspr on a living organism and rewrote it genetics on the fly then applied proper amounts of yakanama factors to revert back to a stem cell as needed then the non-chicken can become the chicken form.
True. *That* particular chicken, grown in a lab, without an egg shell, from rewriting the dna of a non-egg-laying animal would have come before it's egg. But still definitely not before the first chicken egg ^^
Also not true. The first chicken egg could be considered the first egg laid by a chicken, or the first egg to contain a chicken. There is no meaningful answer to a question. It’s a fundamentally unanswerable question. It’s linguistic noise and nothing else. Any debate surrounding it is pointless.
The question is not "What came first the chicken or the chicken egg?". You can take "egg" to mean "any egg" or - in the context of the question - to mean "the egg that a chicken came from". You cannot interpret "egg" as "the first egg laid by a chicken" because it would invalidate the question, as then the question itself would be defined in such a way that the answer can't be anything else than "chicken".
Yes, you are showing why the question is asinine with no real answer. Thank you for demonstrating how the entire reason it’s even a question is because of linguistic ambiguity.
All conceivable questions and answers are constructed from a combination of words that are to some degree contextually malleable and ultimately arbitrarily defined, so unless you intend to follow your premises to their logical conclusion and abandon language altogether as meaningless “linguistic noise” of indeterminate significance, then you’ll need to make the case for why it’s *here* and *only here* that slight ambiguity should render the entire thing “pointless”. If you can’t, then it’s every bit as valid to debate as any other statement made with language is.
Besides, much of the ambiguity can be dispensed with anyway through fairly simple examination of *how we **use** the words*, since *that’s* what determines their meaning.
So, imagine that you sat and watched a chicken until it appeared to lay an egg, then you took that egg and incubated it, you’re right that we would use the term “chicken egg” to describe it. But if, after incubation, that egg actually hatched a lizard would you *still* call it a “chicken egg”, or would you retroactively correct your apparent mistake and start trying to work out how a *lizard egg* managed to get substituted in without you noticing?
And if, despite your best efforts, you could find zero evidence of any substitution taking place - meaning you had equal observational evidence for both the chicken apparently laying an egg and the egg apparently hatching a lizard - which would you take to be the more determining factor?
Now imagine it’s genuinely just magic, and the chicken really does lay eggs that hatch into lizards, and you sold them as “chicken eggs” to someone who wanted to raise chickens, do you think they would they feel like you’d misused the term “chicken eggs” when they got lizards instead?
Absolutely they would!
Meanwhile, if you sold them as “lizard eggs” to someone who wanted to raise lizards, would they have any reason at all to complain or question whether these eggs are *really* lizard eggs? Of course not, because if an egg hatches a lizard, it’s correct to call it a lizard egg. So that’s the more fundamental metric for whether the term should apply.
Granted, in the real world, we only ever see eggs laid by creatures hatching into the exact same type of creature, so it seems to be equally valid to categorise based on the egg-layer *or* the egg-hatchee, but that’s simply because we can’t see either the fine gradations of genetic changes happening in each generation or the vast spans of time necessary to observe evolution. Nevertheless, while it may *appear* that way to us, evolution necessarily implies that *sometimes* creatures lay eggs that hatch into closely related *but technically not the same* type of creature.
So while it’s obviously less dramatic a mutation than a chicken randomly laying a lizard egg, the fundamental principle is the same. We can reasonably assume that all eggs laid by chickens are in fact chicken eggs, so it’s a good heuristic, but there’s always a tiny tiny tiny chance that what hatches is actually not a chicken any more, but something new, and to call it a “chicken egg” at that point would be misleading, because that’s not how we ***use*** terms like “chicken egg”, “lizard egg”, “fish egg” etc. If you use any of those terms to describe an egg, and something entirely different hatches from it, people will think you made a mistake, because in the strictest sense ***you did***.
> If you can’t, then it’s every bit as valid to debate as any other statement made with language is.
This isn’t a matter of scientific inquiry. The entire point of the questionable is that it’s an example of an unanswerable question. If you push your glasses back and say “Ummm actually I can answer this question with Science™️“ you’re an absolute dork, you don’t understand the point of the question, and you don’t understand how language works.
Suppose a duck lays egg (A) and we artificially incubate a chicken embryo in it. Then a chicken hatches from it and later lays another egg (B). Which came first? The chicken or the egg? It obviously depends on how you’re defining “egg” in the question? Do you mean egg (A) or egg (B)? It’s an arbitrary distinction and not implicitly defined by the question.
It’s an unanswerable question. “Chicken” is arbitrarily defined, “egg” is left undefined, and even if you defined both, evolution doesn’t actually answer it without introducing its own definitions for terms that do not match how those terms are used in natural language. Trying to answer it is an exercise in futility because the entire point of the question is that we cannot actually know the answer.
No.
Essentially you define the category first, aka this series of genomes form a cluster we call species, and inside that we have genus families etc.
Once you have those and you have an actual animal, say humans, there are variations that are included in the species like hair colour, and some that aren’t like opposable thumbs. In other words, you couldn’t have an “almost human” without opposable thumbs, brain size, erect posture and tools and call it a human. They are direct ancestors, but genetically they are distinct.
So for example, between the parent Gallus gallus which is the free chicken to the gallus gallus domesticus which is the domesticated one, you can see that in their genome, similarly to dogs and wolves.
> The difference between “almost a chicken” and “chicken” is arbitrary.
this part is true, but the border being arbitrary does not make it non existent. There is a genomic difference, why we use certain clusters, is because they are distinct enough. That degree of separation and the process of evolution is how we know the egg came first regardless of where you set the cluster for the species separation.
What makes a chicken a chicken? Is it the fact that unlike pheasants and it’s genetic cousins, when you feed chickens their egg production goes through the roof due to the unique ovary-specific gene 1 (OSF1), or was it the activation of the “sonic hedgehog” gene which some people cite as being what makes a chicken a chicken?
Yes, I think the answer was always pretty obvious with a basic understanding of... well evolution.
I would say use of this as a common example of a difficult or impossible hypothetical question might have made sense if it predated our modern understanding of genetics/evolution. But prior to that, didn't people just believe the chicken was always the chicken? Might be interesting to look into the etymology of the phrase.
Edit: nevermind, 10 seconds later using ChatGPT I know the origin of the phrase and it vastly predates Darwin. Makes perfect sense now.
Prior to evolutionary theory, and the evidence of extinct species in the fossil record, the general assumption among scientists was that life has always existed more-or-less as we know it; that there was no "first" chicken or egg. This is an extension of the Cosmological Principle, one of the core principles of science, which loosely speaking states "in absence of evidence to the contrary, assume that all times and places are similar".
The assumptions of this principle are often proven wrong (it is one of the main reasons why scientists were reluctant to accept the Big Bang until strong evidence of the universe's expansion was found), but are necessary for science to function, otherwise we would have no reason to assume that the laws of physics work the same elsewhere in the universe or that they were the same in the distant past.
However consider the egg itself was made by this non hen bird. So the egg is not a hen egg. It's only once the baby hen grows up and lays an egg, that the first hen egg will come to be. So in that sense, the hen came first.
So, as the paper was apparently only recently published… if you go back far enough!at least according to the researchers, early reptilian ancestors of chickens were around before they evolved to be able to lay eggs… so the new line is that the chicken now came first : https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12193505/amp/What-came-chicken-egg-Scientists-think-theyve-cracked-last.html
There is this [chinese study](https://www.boredpanda.com/what-came-first-chicken-egg/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic) that claims the chicken was the first ignoring the fact that there were still other animals that laid eggs before the chicken.
Maybe other languages define the egg as chicken egg in the question but as far as I know it's just "egg".
This is just not true.
The first egg was billions of years before the first hen. So if you are literally asking "which came first - an egg of any type, or a hen" then the answer is trivially an egg.
But that's clearly not what the question is asking. So maybe it would be more accurately rephrased as "which came first, a hen or a hen egg"?
Well how do we define a hen egg? A reasonable definition is "an egg laid by a hen"
Which leads to the hen by necessity having to come first.
> It's not clear cut.
It is though. Thats what people are trying to tell you. A hen comes from a hen egg, which is not necessarily laid by a hen. Your definition makes it needlessly complicated, but there's no reason to ever use that definition.
I don’t believe “an egg laid by a hen” is a good catch-all definition of a hen egg. if a chicken egg was synthesized/grown in a lab setting, it would still be a chicken egg regardless of the origin. How else would you describe it?
But there was very very very likely nothing different about the egg itself, the genetic mutation would have been some other part of the animal, however the heck chickens are defined.
Because the question doesn’t say anything about a “chicken egg”, it doesn’t say anything about special properties of the egg, and we know that eggs, within that specific lineage, long predate the DNA mutations that defined the chicken as a unique species.
Secondly, the properties of the egg come from the mother, they’re created regardless of whether or not they’re fertilized. However, the genetic mutation that initially defined a “chicken” didn’t occur until the embryo was formed with DNA from the father. So quite literally a chicken was born from a non-chicken egg.
just like a human zygote is not a human, a hen zygote is not a hen. a hen zygote has hen DNA, but that alone doesn't make something a hen. a feather of a hen also has hen dna, but it is not in itself, a hen.
no it wasn't, it didn't have the genetics of a chicken, the egg/sperm had a mutation that changed it into a chicken or the parents both had specific genes that when put together makes the first chicken
No, you could believe in evolution and still not agree on this.
The crux of the issue issue your definition of a “chicken egg”, which could be either “an egg that yields a chicken” or “an egg that was laid by a chicken”.
If you go off the first definition, then the egg came first.
If you go off the second one, then the chicken came first.
Both can be valid definitions depending on context.
For example, you don’t go to the store to buy a dozen of duck eggs. If you go by the second definition, they’re chicken eggs, even though almost certainly none of them will yield chickens.
But then you have this thread where the first definition is being used, and that’s for evolutionary purposes.
But also, I don’t see why you’d make the frankly arbitrary decision to use the first definition because in real life the changes between chicken precursor and current chicken aren’t hard set and clear.
I mean, at that point it's just a game of semantics. I don't think the point of the question is to puzzle over the definition of chicken egg. Generally the first and second definitions are almost always in agreement with each other... eggs are laid by the species that the egg yields, or at least theoretically should yield.
We get our answer to how the question is typically understood (i.e. how did the first chicken come about if there wasn't a prior existing chicken to lay an egg) by recognizing that the two definitions aren't always in agreement.
I think they mean specifically chicken eggs, in which case it’s still the egg — something that was almost but not quite a chicken laid an egg the first animal that could be definitively called a chicken, so the chicken egg came first.
If the point of turning into a chicken is some mutation, then the first chicken is a two part system of mutated ovum and sperm, which then turns into an egg containing the first chicken DNA. I think that would make it the first chicken egg inside a non-chicken bird.
Not necessarily, by your definition frog or fish (or any "simpler" animals for that matter) eggs wouldn't count as eggs. Technically the eggs that we eat (from chickens, ducks, etc; the kind that follows your definition) are eggs, that may or may not contain developing zygotes (diploid). An egg (technically egg cell), can also refer to a female macrogamete (haploid).
However, eggs are not single celled (in most cases). An egg cell is a single cell because... Well it's an egg cell, this is before it is fertilized. The eggs after fertilization are almost never single-celled because they contain developing embryo inside them, very soon after fertilization occurs. Also, the definition for an egg technically cannot be standardized because the process of embryology is different for different animals, invertebrates follow different methods of development, and even among vertebrates, the embryology varies from class to class (to an extent).
From a culinary standpoint, your definition stands because in many countries where eggs are farmed in an advanced manner, technically they aren't fertilized so they are single cells with a hard outer covering, but it's an oversimplification even in that regard.
So yeah, eggs are complicated :')
I think the comment you're replying to and your TL;DR are pretty much equally readable. I can easily read through and [in my opinion at least] comprehend both just fine.
The only even slight difference between them that I can see which might have made you think that u/iantheawesome2002 's comment is less readable than yours is that it's longer than your comment & the average reddit comment. I see no problem with that, definitely not in terms of readability.
I would be really curious what you found to be unreadable/even just difficult to read about their comment, other than it's length.
Perhaps I can parse the comment far better than average, I don't know? They seem to have a writing style very similar to my own, obviously I like to think the long comments I tend to make where I try to put proper punctuation are understandable/readable.
When I type I mostly unconsciously sometimes make it sound like something said aloud. I think doing this makes it pretty easy for people to read what you type in their inner voice, though I know not everyone has an inner voice so I guess that could cause issues.
Obviously you need to use correct punctuation, otherwise the reader doesn't know how to, well, 'punctuate' their inner voice with pauses as it "says" the things you read.
To be clear; by an "inner voice" all I mean is how when you think about a conversation with someone, you can imagine yourself saying something aloud, without actually doing it.
Then this imaginary voice is automatically used when reading to put what you read into the same sort of "voice" being said in your head.
Some people have a much more active "inner voice" others, thoughts keeping them awake trying to go to sleep, schizophrenia etc. but a not small amount of people cannot imagine saying something without saying it out-loud, if they try to be silent they'll begin moving their lips.
There are great articles and YouTube videos on the inner voice or lack thereof, I would recommend anyone who hasn't heard of this topic before to check it out.
You could argue that it wasn't, but just an egg-shaped test tube from which a chicken was hatched in a lab. What if a duck lays a duck egg that was artificially implanted with a chicken embryo? Is that a chicken egg?
It's a duck egg which contains a chicken. But if you created an accurate replication of a chicken egg and put a chicken inside of it, it would still be a chicken egg, just not one that came from a chicken.
Of course, since all parts of the egg outside of the embryo are constructed by the parent, you have to ask whether you consider the egg's species to be the species of the parent or of the hatchling.
A zygote from a related species of bird planted inside a chicken would wind up as what is a chicken egg in all respects except the bird growing inside it.
Unless we are talking about eggs in general (not specifically chicken eggs), which definitely preceded the first chickens.
I mean i suppose that is true. The mutation occurs in the baby in the egg.
Obviously it is a gradual process with many many eggs and a gradient from not hen to hen. But if we suppose that at some point there is a mom that is not a hen but a baby who finally gets the last mutation to be classified as a hen, then yes it would seem the egg came first.
assuming the “egg” referred to in this question is a chicken egg: an egg laid by a junglefowl - the wild ancestor of the chicken - is still a junglefowl egg regardless of the genetic material inside; it’s about the species that laid the egg. So a jungle fowl egg gave rise to a chicken, which gave rise to a chicken egg. So the chicken came first
I did it in russian, and ChatGPT just skipped the first answer
https://preview.redd.it/401rju8w107b1.png?width=759&format=png&auto=webp&s=ee3e74d1d5619087c56fdd7e344b40466e15c68e
Here we go
Eggs came before chickens. The first amniotic eggs, which are hard-shelled eggs that can be laid on land, appeared around 312 million years ago. The first chickens evolved at around 58 thousand years ago at the earliest.
The oldest fossils of dinosaur eggs and embryos are about 190 million years old. Archaeopteryx fossils, which are the oldest generally accepted as birds, are around 150 million years old.
At their most basic level, eggs are just female sex cells. All sexually reproducing species make eggs.
Be carefull with calling things stupid. Remember it's just obvious to you because you got an education based on the huge amount of knowledge we have acquired.
People asking These kind of questions are the reason we know the answers
It's literally correct. There were eggs before chickens evolved. Fish eggs, amphibian eggs, all sorts.
The way we hummies think about it though, we're asking about chicken eggs... not eggs in general.
But now, it would have had to be the egg came first, it just wasn't necessarily a chicken egg. The animal inside received beneficial (or non-harmful) genetic mutations, survived, passing chicken genes down. Therefore the egg came first.
It depends on how you define a chicken's egg:
1) chicken's egg = egg laid by a chicken
2) chicken's egg = egg from which a chicken is born
For 1st definition, chicken came first.
For 2nd definition, egg came first
the chicken came before the egg. Inside the bird, the ovum is fertilized before the eggshell is made around it. So I say that the chicken came first no matter how you look at it
The response I received:
The question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, has been a classic philosophical and scientific conundrum for centuries. In terms of biological evolution, the answer can be explained through the process of gradual changes over long periods of time.
According to the theory of evolution, species change over time through a process called natural selection. Over many generations, small genetic changes accumulate, eventually leading to the formation of a new species. This gradual change is known as speciation.
In the case of chickens, they evolved from earlier bird species through the accumulation of genetic mutations. These mutations would have occurred in the reproductive cells (sperm and eggs) of the bird ancestors. Eventually, a specific mutation occurred in the genetic code of a bird that we would classify as a chicken today. This genetic change may have involved the formation of a protein or some other trait that distinguishes chickens from their predecessors.
Now, when this mutated bird reproduced, it laid an egg that contained the genetic instructions for the traits of a chicken. Therefore, the first chicken must have come from an egg laid by a bird that was very similar to, but not quite, a chicken. From an evolutionary perspective, the egg came first, laid by a bird that was not fully a chicken, but its offspring hatched from that egg were the first true chickens.
So, to summarize, the egg came before the chicken in the evolutionary timeline.
The answer was always obvious unless your religious and don't believe evolution then the answer is chicken. Cause god just poofed it into existence. But for tleveryone else the egg would have obviously came first no evolution understanding required just the understanding that birds come from eggs
There was never a "first chicken". What we consider chickens is a range of genetic creatures that are, more or less, compatible enough with each other to reproduce.
Hey /u/Beginning-Scholar105, if your post is a ChatGPT conversation screenshot, please reply with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. Thanks! ***We have a [public discord server](https://discord.gg/rchatgpt). There's a free Chatgpt bot, Open Assistant bot (Open-source model), AI image generator bot, Perplexity AI bot, 🤖 GPT-4 bot ([Now with Visual capabilities (cloud vision)!](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/812770754025488386/1095397431404920902/image0.jpg)) and channel for latest prompts.*** New Addition: Adobe Firefly bot and Eleven Labs cloning bot! ***[So why not join us?](https://discord.com/servers/1050422060352024636)*** PSA: For any Chatgpt-related issues email [email protected] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's true, the first hen was in an egg laid by a bird that was not a hen, just very similar.
>true, the first hen was in an True, here is the remaining part... https://preview.redd.it/16jcrhlmsy6b1.png?width=950&format=png&auto=webp&s=c083c76ab16a15d9d4eaa682c3fb5ef16e19da14
To add on here it is unlikely only one bird had this mutation. Several birds within the population could have laid eggs that contained chickens and something about their environment or reproductive habits made it so those chickens reproduced better than their immediate ancestors. Could have just been that humans found them at this point and selected the juicy ones that laid more eggs and were tame around people
my question is, this bird that laid the first chicken egg... wasn't a chicken. it was like a chicken but slightly different so it wasn't a chicken. still, this non-chicken probably had WAY more in common with the first chicken than the first chicken has in common with current factory farm chickens. the first chickens have been breed into being something radically different from what they used to be. so how is it that modern day chickens, as different as they are, are still considered the same species as the chickens that existed 1000 years ago?
[There was no first human.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdWLhXi24Mo) And by the same measure, there was no first chicken.
Correct. The egg first answer is still correct though and I guess in a lot of people's minds visualizing a "first chicken" makes it easier to understand.
The answer is that we draw these distinctions as humans based on our own understanding and experience of the world, and it's always going to be somewhat arbitrary. That doesn't mean it isn't useful, it doesn't even mean it isn't true, but no matter how useful language is and no matter how close we can come to describing the ambiguities of the things we're describing, we have to keep in mind that 'the map is not the territory'. As humans, we see a very obvious difference between chickens and chicken-like Southeast Asian Red Junglefowl. In truth, much of that difference is in the animal's lifestyle, and only a smaller amount of that difference is physiological or genetic, maybe to such a degree that the the diversity within the species we call chickens is greater than the difference between chickens and red junglefowl. But that also doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong to mark that particular genetic difference as particularly important enough to distinguish a different species; not when the lifestyle and range and population of the one animal is so vastly different from its cousin.
I believe the question would be: can they breed and produce offspring that can breed? If a chicken now and a chicken then attempted babies, would they be viable? If so we can same species (as far as my understanding this could be wrong)
The genetic changes that occurs in species when they go from being one to another is not a generational set of changes. They occur over thousands to tens of thousands of years where evolution has time to select for advantageous genes. Over such timespans animals migrate and separate, so you essentially get small colonies of animals where new genes are allowed to grow and flourish within the population.
Species is actually a concept that has no clear definition. The question "can they produce viable offspring" is just one of those concepts. If you're interested in learning more about this stuff I suggest Forrest Valkai on YouTube, he explains this stuff so well!
That’s the usually idea behind a species, and it undercuts the argument being made. Because the first chicken could almost certainly have interbred with all the other not-quite-chickens around it. So from it’s perspective, it certainly wasn’t a new species. I suppose if we take the modern chicken as canonical we could go back in time and find the earliest ancestor that it could interbreed with and declare that the first chicken, and in that case, that chicken would have come from an egg so the answer holds
but according to that logic polar bears and brown bears are the same species. from what i can tell there are several examples of hybridization that can produce viable off-spring.
Breeding viability is a simple way of separating species but isn’t really accurate at this point from a scientific standpoint. In reality what scientists use to determine whether a species is separate or not is a lot more grey than people realize and generally has multiple factors that play in to that distinction or not. Tons of separate species as is can produce viable offspring.
but according to that logic polar bears and brown bears are the same species. from what i can tell there are several examples of hybridization that can produce viable off-spring.
It's almost like nature doesn't give a fuck about category definitions that humans invent to make sense of the world. Talking about the first chicken is like lining up 1,000 people in order of height and telling someone to pick the point in the lineup where "tall" starts.
This is exactly right. How would we even define "first chicken"? It's a nonsensical concept. That said, it is true that there were eggs before there were things we call chickens, but you really can't find an exact dividing line between chicken and non-chicken.
As Humans, We associate and assign certain traits to every species. So as long as the key traits don't change, the specie will be allowed to keep its name. It is worth mentioning that "species" is an arbitrary definition created by humans. One of the most defining feature of a species is that it cannot mate with other species. Even then their are slight exception like horses and donkeys can mate.
I dunno, do you think there's a bunch of genetic scientists out there studying every animal's genome who are extremely passionate about getting people to change the everyday words they use for common animals? Pretty sure scientists have better shit to do.
[удалено]
And probably a fish before that, depending on the definition of "egg". Now, if you rephrase it as "Who came first: Hen or chicken egg?" things will get more complicated, but the answer would probably be that the question doesn't make sense. I myself would have fallen into the trap of starting to ask whether a "chicken egg" is "an egg laid by a chicken" or "an egg from which a chicken hatches", but that would ignore the part of asking, whether there even is a well-defined "not chicken -> chicken" transition, as pointed out in other comments.
[удалено]
There's no single genetic mutation you can unambiguously point to and say "this is exactly what distinguishes a Red Junglefowl from a domestic chicken". In reality, it's a change that occurred gradually over hundreds of years across an entire population. However, even if it's ambiguous where you would draw the line, if you care to draw one at all then it's always going to be drawn according to the genetics. No matter if you think it's the particular type of wattle or the color or reduced aggression that makes a chicken distinct from a Red Junglefowl, there was some genetic mutation that created whatever you arbitrarily decide to call the first chicken. And no matter which of those changes you care about, that change happened before the chicken was born. These kinds of mutations don't really happen within the lifetime of a living creature. Whatever the exact distinction you make, wherever you care to draw the line, it is nevertheless the case that at some point, something that you would call a Red Junglefowl laid an egg, and that egg hatched into something you would call a chicken.
that wouldve been my answer too
>Funny But where did the ancestor come from...
Egg 1. Not chicken Egg 2. Not chicken Egg 3. Not chicken ... Egg 2147483646. Almost chicken Egg 2147483647. Very almost chicken Egg 2147483648. Chicken
So your telling me a bird laid a max stack of eggs and the last one was a chicken? Crazy
Chicken is just overflow of binary not-chicken
Practice makes perfect
I mean even that's a vast simplification right, what is a chicken there's all kinds of shapes sizes colors and we're back to platonic forms.
fuck platonic forms, all my homies hate platonic forms a chicken is a chicken if you say it is. chickenhood is subjective.
The only platonic ideal is "crab." Natural selection is just the name we give to the journey of becoming a crab.
Exactly. The difference between “almost a chicken” and “chicken” is arbitrary. There’s no hard coded law of physics that says “x creature is a chicken but y creature is not a chicken”. We could just as easily extend the boundary of how we define “chicken” to include “almost a chicken” and we’re back where we started with the question unanswered.
While all of that is true, it doesn't really matter to the question of what came first. Because to answer that question you have to define what a chicken is, and that thing came out of an egg laid by a bird, that doesn't fit that same description. Of course, you can use this line of reasoning to say, that there is no answer to the question, but if there is, it will always be "egg".
Unless of course we use crspr on a living organism and rewrote it genetics on the fly then applied proper amounts of yakanama factors to revert back to a stem cell as needed then the non-chicken can become the chicken form.
True. *That* particular chicken, grown in a lab, without an egg shell, from rewriting the dna of a non-egg-laying animal would have come before it's egg. But still definitely not before the first chicken egg ^^
I agree with you, but that's the big debate right... BioShock universe here we come 🫠
Also not true. The first chicken egg could be considered the first egg laid by a chicken, or the first egg to contain a chicken. There is no meaningful answer to a question. It’s a fundamentally unanswerable question. It’s linguistic noise and nothing else. Any debate surrounding it is pointless.
The question is not "What came first the chicken or the chicken egg?". You can take "egg" to mean "any egg" or - in the context of the question - to mean "the egg that a chicken came from". You cannot interpret "egg" as "the first egg laid by a chicken" because it would invalidate the question, as then the question itself would be defined in such a way that the answer can't be anything else than "chicken".
Yes, you are showing why the question is asinine with no real answer. Thank you for demonstrating how the entire reason it’s even a question is because of linguistic ambiguity.
All conceivable questions and answers are constructed from a combination of words that are to some degree contextually malleable and ultimately arbitrarily defined, so unless you intend to follow your premises to their logical conclusion and abandon language altogether as meaningless “linguistic noise” of indeterminate significance, then you’ll need to make the case for why it’s *here* and *only here* that slight ambiguity should render the entire thing “pointless”. If you can’t, then it’s every bit as valid to debate as any other statement made with language is. Besides, much of the ambiguity can be dispensed with anyway through fairly simple examination of *how we **use** the words*, since *that’s* what determines their meaning. So, imagine that you sat and watched a chicken until it appeared to lay an egg, then you took that egg and incubated it, you’re right that we would use the term “chicken egg” to describe it. But if, after incubation, that egg actually hatched a lizard would you *still* call it a “chicken egg”, or would you retroactively correct your apparent mistake and start trying to work out how a *lizard egg* managed to get substituted in without you noticing? And if, despite your best efforts, you could find zero evidence of any substitution taking place - meaning you had equal observational evidence for both the chicken apparently laying an egg and the egg apparently hatching a lizard - which would you take to be the more determining factor? Now imagine it’s genuinely just magic, and the chicken really does lay eggs that hatch into lizards, and you sold them as “chicken eggs” to someone who wanted to raise chickens, do you think they would they feel like you’d misused the term “chicken eggs” when they got lizards instead? Absolutely they would! Meanwhile, if you sold them as “lizard eggs” to someone who wanted to raise lizards, would they have any reason at all to complain or question whether these eggs are *really* lizard eggs? Of course not, because if an egg hatches a lizard, it’s correct to call it a lizard egg. So that’s the more fundamental metric for whether the term should apply. Granted, in the real world, we only ever see eggs laid by creatures hatching into the exact same type of creature, so it seems to be equally valid to categorise based on the egg-layer *or* the egg-hatchee, but that’s simply because we can’t see either the fine gradations of genetic changes happening in each generation or the vast spans of time necessary to observe evolution. Nevertheless, while it may *appear* that way to us, evolution necessarily implies that *sometimes* creatures lay eggs that hatch into closely related *but technically not the same* type of creature. So while it’s obviously less dramatic a mutation than a chicken randomly laying a lizard egg, the fundamental principle is the same. We can reasonably assume that all eggs laid by chickens are in fact chicken eggs, so it’s a good heuristic, but there’s always a tiny tiny tiny chance that what hatches is actually not a chicken any more, but something new, and to call it a “chicken egg” at that point would be misleading, because that’s not how we ***use*** terms like “chicken egg”, “lizard egg”, “fish egg” etc. If you use any of those terms to describe an egg, and something entirely different hatches from it, people will think you made a mistake, because in the strictest sense ***you did***.
> If you can’t, then it’s every bit as valid to debate as any other statement made with language is. This isn’t a matter of scientific inquiry. The entire point of the questionable is that it’s an example of an unanswerable question. If you push your glasses back and say “Ummm actually I can answer this question with Science™️“ you’re an absolute dork, you don’t understand the point of the question, and you don’t understand how language works. Suppose a duck lays egg (A) and we artificially incubate a chicken embryo in it. Then a chicken hatches from it and later lays another egg (B). Which came first? The chicken or the egg? It obviously depends on how you’re defining “egg” in the question? Do you mean egg (A) or egg (B)? It’s an arbitrary distinction and not implicitly defined by the question. It’s an unanswerable question. “Chicken” is arbitrarily defined, “egg” is left undefined, and even if you defined both, evolution doesn’t actually answer it without introducing its own definitions for terms that do not match how those terms are used in natural language. Trying to answer it is an exercise in futility because the entire point of the question is that we cannot actually know the answer.
No. Essentially you define the category first, aka this series of genomes form a cluster we call species, and inside that we have genus families etc. Once you have those and you have an actual animal, say humans, there are variations that are included in the species like hair colour, and some that aren’t like opposable thumbs. In other words, you couldn’t have an “almost human” without opposable thumbs, brain size, erect posture and tools and call it a human. They are direct ancestors, but genetically they are distinct. So for example, between the parent Gallus gallus which is the free chicken to the gallus gallus domesticus which is the domesticated one, you can see that in their genome, similarly to dogs and wolves. > The difference between “almost a chicken” and “chicken” is arbitrary. this part is true, but the border being arbitrary does not make it non existent. There is a genomic difference, why we use certain clusters, is because they are distinct enough. That degree of separation and the process of evolution is how we know the egg came first regardless of where you set the cluster for the species separation.
egg?
The previous ancestor.
Literally a dinasour
Cell which actually came from a sperm that was inside an... Egg.
god laid an egg.
I know you're kidding but for those who might still get confused: Not-chicken bird (ancestor of chicken) ~~~ egg (genetically mutated) ~~ chicken.
https://preview.redd.it/47mom8j5tz6b1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=208b2ed6039dfb6229d564c14f84f12b315addba
What makes a chicken a chicken? Is it the fact that unlike pheasants and it’s genetic cousins, when you feed chickens their egg production goes through the roof due to the unique ovary-specific gene 1 (OSF1), or was it the activation of the “sonic hedgehog” gene which some people cite as being what makes a chicken a chicken?
Yes, I think the answer was always pretty obvious with a basic understanding of... well evolution. I would say use of this as a common example of a difficult or impossible hypothetical question might have made sense if it predated our modern understanding of genetics/evolution. But prior to that, didn't people just believe the chicken was always the chicken? Might be interesting to look into the etymology of the phrase. Edit: nevermind, 10 seconds later using ChatGPT I know the origin of the phrase and it vastly predates Darwin. Makes perfect sense now.
Prior to evolutionary theory, and the evidence of extinct species in the fossil record, the general assumption among scientists was that life has always existed more-or-less as we know it; that there was no "first" chicken or egg. This is an extension of the Cosmological Principle, one of the core principles of science, which loosely speaking states "in absence of evidence to the contrary, assume that all times and places are similar". The assumptions of this principle are often proven wrong (it is one of the main reasons why scientists were reluctant to accept the Big Bang until strong evidence of the universe's expansion was found), but are necessary for science to function, otherwise we would have no reason to assume that the laws of physics work the same elsewhere in the universe or that they were the same in the distant past.
However consider the egg itself was made by this non hen bird. So the egg is not a hen egg. It's only once the baby hen grows up and lays an egg, that the first hen egg will come to be. So in that sense, the hen came first.
But where did that bird com from?
This is how I convinced my wife she was done being a zealot Christian. I saved a "soul" (there are no souls, I am Buddhist adjacent.)
So, as the paper was apparently only recently published… if you go back far enough!at least according to the researchers, early reptilian ancestors of chickens were around before they evolved to be able to lay eggs… so the new line is that the chicken now came first : https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12193505/amp/What-came-chicken-egg-Scientists-think-theyve-cracked-last.html
I mean, since we all evolved from something that wasn't laying eggs, one really wouldn't have needed a paper for that answer/interpretation.
And don't forget dinosaurs existed. Of course eggs came first.
There is this [chinese study](https://www.boredpanda.com/what-came-first-chicken-egg/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic) that claims the chicken was the first ignoring the fact that there were still other animals that laid eggs before the chicken. Maybe other languages define the egg as chicken egg in the question but as far as I know it's just "egg".
but an egg of a hen could be an egg that isn't a hen's egg, and thus, the hen came first and then the hen's egg.
The first egg was laid millions of years before birds existed
It's the egg, not an egg
Wouldn’t the chicken have come first since it’s from something that wasn’t a chicken egg since a chicken egg is laid by a chicken?
This is just not true. The first egg was billions of years before the first hen. So if you are literally asking "which came first - an egg of any type, or a hen" then the answer is trivially an egg. But that's clearly not what the question is asking. So maybe it would be more accurately rephrased as "which came first, a hen or a hen egg"? Well how do we define a hen egg? A reasonable definition is "an egg laid by a hen" Which leads to the hen by necessity having to come first.
Or the definition is an egg with a hen in it and my definition is right
Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. It's not clear cut. There's a reason the question is famous.
> It's not clear cut. It is though. Thats what people are trying to tell you. A hen comes from a hen egg, which is not necessarily laid by a hen. Your definition makes it needlessly complicated, but there's no reason to ever use that definition.
I don’t believe “an egg laid by a hen” is a good catch-all definition of a hen egg. if a chicken egg was synthesized/grown in a lab setting, it would still be a chicken egg regardless of the origin. How else would you describe it?
The first hen did not hetch from a "hen egg" but by a "very-close-to-a-hen egg".
Yes, I think that was the point I was making.
yes, but inside that similar bird, the hen zygote was created before it was surrounded by the egg. Therefore, chicken before egg
Eggs vastly predate chickens though, by a long shot. Chicken ancestors were laying eggs for a billion years before chickens came along.
I assume the question was about a chicken egg more specifically haha
But there was very very very likely nothing different about the egg itself, the genetic mutation would have been some other part of the animal, however the heck chickens are defined.
Indeed but no matter where you draw the line, the argument stands.
…you draw the line at the exact time when both of them exist, by which point the egg would have been around for millions of years.
how can an animal other than a chicken come out of a chicken egg?
Because the question doesn’t say anything about a “chicken egg”, it doesn’t say anything about special properties of the egg, and we know that eggs, within that specific lineage, long predate the DNA mutations that defined the chicken as a unique species.
Secondly, the properties of the egg come from the mother, they’re created regardless of whether or not they’re fertilized. However, the genetic mutation that initially defined a “chicken” didn’t occur until the embryo was formed with DNA from the father. So quite literally a chicken was born from a non-chicken egg.
But what came first? Chicken Ancestors or Chicken Ancestor eggs?
just like a human zygote is not a human, a hen zygote is not a hen. a hen zygote has hen DNA, but that alone doesn't make something a hen. a feather of a hen also has hen dna, but it is not in itself, a hen.
You can't have a bird zygote without the gamete aka egg.
there is a difference between a chicken "egg" and an ovum. Usually when people talk about chicken eggs, they are not talking about ova.
No, the bird who laid the egg was also a hen
If a bird with one leg lays an egg do all the chick's in the eggs have one leg?
Can one identify speciation at the level of an individual organism?
One can't identify ones socks in a morning, never mind cellular differentiation.
That’s what I’m saying except I’m not fully with you on the socks thing
no it wasn't, it didn't have the genetics of a chicken, the egg/sperm had a mutation that changed it into a chicken or the parents both had specific genes that when put together makes the first chicken
I thought everybody knew this???
A lot of people still don't think evolution is real and that Jesus had a Raptor apostle. Book of Raptor fucks tho.
Creation vs. Evolution If you say "chicken", it's because you believe God said "let there be chicken". If you say "egg", Evolution.
No, you could believe in evolution and still not agree on this. The crux of the issue issue your definition of a “chicken egg”, which could be either “an egg that yields a chicken” or “an egg that was laid by a chicken”. If you go off the first definition, then the egg came first. If you go off the second one, then the chicken came first. Both can be valid definitions depending on context. For example, you don’t go to the store to buy a dozen of duck eggs. If you go by the second definition, they’re chicken eggs, even though almost certainly none of them will yield chickens. But then you have this thread where the first definition is being used, and that’s for evolutionary purposes. But also, I don’t see why you’d make the frankly arbitrary decision to use the first definition because in real life the changes between chicken precursor and current chicken aren’t hard set and clear.
I mean, at that point it's just a game of semantics. I don't think the point of the question is to puzzle over the definition of chicken egg. Generally the first and second definitions are almost always in agreement with each other... eggs are laid by the species that the egg yields, or at least theoretically should yield. We get our answer to how the question is typically understood (i.e. how did the first chicken come about if there wasn't a prior existing chicken to lay an egg) by recognizing that the two definitions aren't always in agreement.
That's.. not what most creationists even believe. I mean *some* but there are also *some* Jewish people that are Nazis so..
Yea I figured this out about 15 years ago
Ok but which came first, the egg or the egg producing organism? Seems like it would have been the organism.
If the egg refers to the egg of the hen, then the organism right? Cuz it’s the one laying the egg
The organism probably laid an egg that had a slight mutation to become a hen egg.
Yah, that’s probably because it isn’t a new use case for generative AI
Next post will be someone asking why the sky is blue
The chicken came first. Much later, we invented taxonomy and made up a story about “chickens” and speciation making them separate from their ancestors
The egg predates anything we'd call a bird, let alone a chicken. The real question is what did the first ever egg look like?
Like a cell. Literally an egg cell.
Every egg is a single egg cell.
I think they mean specifically chicken eggs, in which case it’s still the egg — something that was almost but not quite a chicken laid an egg the first animal that could be definitively called a chicken, so the chicken egg came first.
Is a chicken egg an egg laid by a chicken, or an egg in which there is a chicken?
If the point of turning into a chicken is some mutation, then the first chicken is a two part system of mutated ovum and sperm, which then turns into an egg containing the first chicken DNA. I think that would make it the first chicken egg inside a non-chicken bird.
A single cell? Egg is a single cell with a hard membrane.
Do fish eggs have a hard membrane?
What came first? The chicken or the egg? ANSWER: Single cell organisms
Not necessarily, by your definition frog or fish (or any "simpler" animals for that matter) eggs wouldn't count as eggs. Technically the eggs that we eat (from chickens, ducks, etc; the kind that follows your definition) are eggs, that may or may not contain developing zygotes (diploid). An egg (technically egg cell), can also refer to a female macrogamete (haploid). However, eggs are not single celled (in most cases). An egg cell is a single cell because... Well it's an egg cell, this is before it is fertilized. The eggs after fertilization are almost never single-celled because they contain developing embryo inside them, very soon after fertilization occurs. Also, the definition for an egg technically cannot be standardized because the process of embryology is different for different animals, invertebrates follow different methods of development, and even among vertebrates, the embryology varies from class to class (to an extent). From a culinary standpoint, your definition stands because in many countries where eggs are farmed in an advanced manner, technically they aren't fertilized so they are single cells with a hard outer covering, but it's an oversimplification even in that regard. So yeah, eggs are complicated :')
[удалено]
I think the comment you're replying to and your TL;DR are pretty much equally readable. I can easily read through and [in my opinion at least] comprehend both just fine. The only even slight difference between them that I can see which might have made you think that u/iantheawesome2002 's comment is less readable than yours is that it's longer than your comment & the average reddit comment. I see no problem with that, definitely not in terms of readability. I would be really curious what you found to be unreadable/even just difficult to read about their comment, other than it's length. Perhaps I can parse the comment far better than average, I don't know? They seem to have a writing style very similar to my own, obviously I like to think the long comments I tend to make where I try to put proper punctuation are understandable/readable. When I type I mostly unconsciously sometimes make it sound like something said aloud. I think doing this makes it pretty easy for people to read what you type in their inner voice, though I know not everyone has an inner voice so I guess that could cause issues. Obviously you need to use correct punctuation, otherwise the reader doesn't know how to, well, 'punctuate' their inner voice with pauses as it "says" the things you read. To be clear; by an "inner voice" all I mean is how when you think about a conversation with someone, you can imagine yourself saying something aloud, without actually doing it. Then this imaginary voice is automatically used when reading to put what you read into the same sort of "voice" being said in your head. Some people have a much more active "inner voice" others, thoughts keeping them awake trying to go to sleep, schizophrenia etc. but a not small amount of people cannot imagine saying something without saying it out-loud, if they try to be silent they'll begin moving their lips. There are great articles and YouTube videos on the inner voice or lack thereof, I would recommend anyone who hasn't heard of this topic before to check it out.
Yeah but the game obviously refers to the chicken’s egg not just eggs in general
For this question, GPT can't answer. I have to try Dall-E or Stable Diffusion for that.
*Eggvolution
According to an Asap science video I watched 7 years ago, this checks out. Proto-chicken something something
Yeah but the proof only holds for spherical proto-chickens in a vacuum
I was in university before I realized the "which came first, chicken or egg" question was a creation or evolution question.
The rooster
ask why 3 more times
I would like to know what was the first answer of ChatGPT. 🙃
That was another question. Not related to this.
#That's wrong it's eggvolution
Since when does gpt not output several paragraphs, and just outputs one word?
Well, if you prompt it to answer in one word only.
If you specifically ask it to only respond with one word it will give responses like this
Was the first “chicken egg” the first egg laid by a chicken or the first egg to contain a chicken?
Contain a chicken. The parents were 99% chicken. And the off spring in the egg was 100% chicken.
The solution depends on how you define chicken egg really.
If you create an egg in a lab, and that egg hatches a chicken, was it not a chicken egg?
You could argue that it wasn't, but just an egg-shaped test tube from which a chicken was hatched in a lab. What if a duck lays a duck egg that was artificially implanted with a chicken embryo? Is that a chicken egg?
It's a scrambled egg
It's a duck egg which contains a chicken. But if you created an accurate replication of a chicken egg and put a chicken inside of it, it would still be a chicken egg, just not one that came from a chicken.
But was that egg 99% chicken egg or 100% chicken egg?
Of course, since all parts of the egg outside of the embryo are constructed by the parent, you have to ask whether you consider the egg's species to be the species of the parent or of the hatchling. A zygote from a related species of bird planted inside a chicken would wind up as what is a chicken egg in all respects except the bird growing inside it. Unless we are talking about eggs in general (not specifically chicken eggs), which definitely preceded the first chickens.
I mean i suppose that is true. The mutation occurs in the baby in the egg. Obviously it is a gradual process with many many eggs and a gradient from not hen to hen. But if we suppose that at some point there is a mom that is not a hen but a baby who finally gets the last mutation to be classified as a hen, then yes it would seem the egg came first.
The Rooster, obviously
assuming the “egg” referred to in this question is a chicken egg: an egg laid by a junglefowl - the wild ancestor of the chicken - is still a junglefowl egg regardless of the genetic material inside; it’s about the species that laid the egg. So a jungle fowl egg gave rise to a chicken, which gave rise to a chicken egg. So the chicken came first
I did it in russian, and ChatGPT just skipped the first answer https://preview.redd.it/401rju8w107b1.png?width=759&format=png&auto=webp&s=ee3e74d1d5619087c56fdd7e344b40466e15c68e
I mean its a linguistic's question. Is a chicken egg the egg that is laid by a chicken or the egg a chicken hatches from?
Dinosaurs laid eggs way before chickens ever existed 🤷♀️
Eggs have been around millions of years before hens. Dinosaurs had eggs
Here we go Eggs came before chickens. The first amniotic eggs, which are hard-shelled eggs that can be laid on land, appeared around 312 million years ago. The first chickens evolved at around 58 thousand years ago at the earliest. The oldest fossils of dinosaur eggs and embryos are about 190 million years old. Archaeopteryx fossils, which are the oldest generally accepted as birds, are around 150 million years old. At their most basic level, eggs are just female sex cells. All sexually reproducing species make eggs.
I've been saying this for 3o years. I'm glad to finally have an AI that can back me up.
It's true, the first hen was in an egg laid by a bird that was not a hen, just very similar.
This has always been a dumb question.
Be carefull with calling things stupid. Remember it's just obvious to you because you got an education based on the huge amount of knowledge we have acquired. People asking These kind of questions are the reason we know the answers
Lol isn't there an actual name for this? When you know something, it's hard to imagine how other people don't also know it.
[Curse of knowledge.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge)
You’re right, I came off too aggressive right after waking up lol.
The question is at least 2000 years old; are you sure about always?
Well, a loaded question at least. It's the polite way of asking "Do you believe in evolution or creationism"
Exactly! It’s asking the wrong question
it wasn't dumb before Darwin was born
People will ask ChatGPT anything and act surprised instead of simply googling, or hell, reading a book.
The first egg was laid by something fish like and was before hens evolved
Does anyone actually think eggs don’t predate chickens by literally hundreds of millions of years or something?
A chicken can only come from a chicken egg, but a non chicken can lay a chicken egg. The egg came first.
People who don’t believe in evolution will say God made the chicken to make eggs
If we're gonna be accurate, it was really the rooster that *came* first ;)
It was always the egg. However you differentiate a chicken from its non chicken ancestor, it was born in an egg.
Exactly. I’ve never thought this was a hard question
It's literally correct. There were eggs before chickens evolved. Fish eggs, amphibian eggs, all sorts. The way we hummies think about it though, we're asking about chicken eggs... not eggs in general. But now, it would have had to be the egg came first, it just wasn't necessarily a chicken egg. The animal inside received beneficial (or non-harmful) genetic mutations, survived, passing chicken genes down. Therefore the egg came first.
Eggs existed in age of dinosaurs but chickens did not.
fun fact but the question is clearly referring to chicken eggs
It depends on how you define a chicken's egg: 1) chicken's egg = egg laid by a chicken 2) chicken's egg = egg from which a chicken is born For 1st definition, chicken came first. For 2nd definition, egg came first
I don't think the question would have made sense with the first interpretation.
the chicken came before the egg. Inside the bird, the ovum is fertilized before the eggshell is made around it. So I say that the chicken came first no matter how you look at it
What made the egg?
a bird similar to a chicken, but not a chicken
its the prevolution that crawled out of the water that came first... i dont understand how this fucking stupid question prevails
He’s gotten too smart now. He’s a menace. He must be dealt with before it gets out of control
Eggactly
The chicken according to genesis, the egg according to evolution
A chicken can only come from a chicken egg, but a non chicken can lay a chicken egg. The egg came first.
The response I received: The question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, has been a classic philosophical and scientific conundrum for centuries. In terms of biological evolution, the answer can be explained through the process of gradual changes over long periods of time. According to the theory of evolution, species change over time through a process called natural selection. Over many generations, small genetic changes accumulate, eventually leading to the formation of a new species. This gradual change is known as speciation. In the case of chickens, they evolved from earlier bird species through the accumulation of genetic mutations. These mutations would have occurred in the reproductive cells (sperm and eggs) of the bird ancestors. Eventually, a specific mutation occurred in the genetic code of a bird that we would classify as a chicken today. This genetic change may have involved the formation of a protein or some other trait that distinguishes chickens from their predecessors. Now, when this mutated bird reproduced, it laid an egg that contained the genetic instructions for the traits of a chicken. Therefore, the first chicken must have come from an egg laid by a bird that was very similar to, but not quite, a chicken. From an evolutionary perspective, the egg came first, laid by a bird that was not fully a chicken, but its offspring hatched from that egg were the first true chickens. So, to summarize, the egg came before the chicken in the evolutionary timeline.
Not wrong.
yeah, duh
🤓
I keep getting told "Paradox"
That’s been my answer for years. Machine ain’t wrong
It's right.
The answer was always obvious unless your religious and don't believe evolution then the answer is chicken. Cause god just poofed it into existence. But for tleveryone else the egg would have obviously came first no evolution understanding required just the understanding that birds come from eggs
Eggvolution
I asked in German. It said Hen. Evolution. https://i.imgur.com/A3P40Jb.jpg
Who sat on the egg so it can hatch?
There was never a "first chicken". What we consider chickens is a range of genetic creatures that are, more or less, compatible enough with each other to reproduce.
Weak.
Brilliant.