And if you meant a chickenegg similar to the ones we have now, it's also the egg.
Look back in the evolvement-history of the chicken. Gradually, a creature evolved, things changing about the creature, making it more chicken with every step. Every DNA-mutation happens when a creature reproduces. The last mutation needed to evolve the creature into a chicken (you'll have to decide what ancestors you call a chicken, and what not) took also place during reproduction. In other words, the chickenegg was first, and from it came the first creature that was called a chicken.
If you're a linguist then the chicken came first. We named the creature before we named the reproduction method (eg the name chicken exists longer then the name chicken-egg)
Originally posted by TheMaster37So, what was this creature called that laid the first "chicken-egg"? I would guess that they were very populous, because it must have taken them thousands of years to evolve into a chicken, and that is a low estimate. So there must be plenty of fossil evidence.
And if you meant a chickenegg similar to the ones we have now, it's also the egg.
Look back in the evolvement-history of the chicken. Gradually, a creature evolved, things changing about the creature, making it more chicken with every step. Every DNA-mutation happens when a creature reproduces. The last mutation needed to evolve the creature into a c ...[text shortened]... e we named the reproduction method (eg the name chicken exists longer then the name chicken-egg)
This creature would have to be very similar to a chicken, because it had to reproduce with the new born chicken to start the new race. Can you explain what advantage the modern chicken had upon it's birth? That last mutation must have been amazing to completely wipe out the "pre-cursor to the chicken-beast" during natural selection.
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
Originally posted by PolynikesIt was domesticable and tasty, and very productive egg-wise. I don't think the selection method was natural as such, though.
Can you explain what advantage the modern chicken had upon it's birth? That last mutation must have been amazing to completely wipe out the "pre-cursor to the chicken-beast" during natural selection.
Originally posted by PolynikesIt depends on where you draw the line between chicken and nonchicken, as TheMaster37 pointed out. Wherever that line is drawn, the parent of the first chicken was a very chicken like animal. The last mutation was just good enough that it enabled chickens to slowly outcompete the protochickens, but I don't know what it was. I haven't looked into the matter.
So, what was this creature called that laid the first "chicken-egg"? I would guess that they were very populous, because it must have taken them thousands of years to evolve into a chicken, and that is a low estimate. So there must be plenty of fossil evidence.
This creature would have to be very similar to a chicken, because it had to reproduce wit ...[text shortened]... azing to completely wipe out the "pre-cursor to the chicken-beast" during natural selection.
TheMaster37 is right though. The egg came first.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSounds pretty good. Does this protochicken still exist at all, or has it become extinct? What were some of it's more primitive features? Did it have fully developed senses yet?
It depends on where you draw the line between chicken and nonchicken, as TheMaster37 pointed out. Wherever that line is drawn, the parent of the first chicken was a very chicken like animal. The last mutation was just good enough that it enabled chickens to slowly outcompete the protochickens, but I don't know what it was. I haven't looked into the matter.
TheMaster37 is right though. The egg came first.
Better yet, can someone reccomend a book, a museum, or a website that I can check out to find out more about this animal?
I would also like to find out some more information on the direct ancestors of the following animals:
Red Kangaroo
Polar bear
Raccoon
African Elephant
Zebra
If someone could also please trace these back to a common ancestor, it would be greatly appreciated. Complete skeletons are not 100% necessary.
I am also interested in finding out what was the last known beneficial mutation that resulted in a live birth of a new species. That would be very cool to know for impressing my dates.
What luck has science had in duplicating this natural phenomenon? These evolutionary changes must be fairly easy to duplicate. Evolution has been at work on this planet for millions of years, and it does not seem that anything can stop it. The multitude of creatures on this earth are proof of that. It must be as simple to engineer in a laboratory as taking the aitches and ohs apart in H2O, right?
One more quick question: If the chicken came from the protochickens, it must have bred with them. Of course, since there were no other chickens, right? I just want to find out how a new species was ever formed, since different species cannot breed with each other. That would be awesome to find out! Thanks, guys!
Id say there was first a chickenegg (defined as an egg that can produce a chicken) and than a chicken (defined as a creature that came from a chickenegg).
Long before there were chickens there were eggs, so say a certain bird species that is quite similar to another species breeds with that other species. They'd probably produce an egg (if they'd produce anything at all 😉 ) and from a couple of eggs with mixed genes there might rise a new species.
(Maybe it's possible that two species breed and produce an animal(=chicken) that can make eggs, but that seems much less probable)
Originally posted by PolynikesThe problem with answering your question is that you misunderstand the theory of evolution (TOE). Instead of organisms jumping from species to species, there's a very gradual change. Species differentiate not by one species coming from another, but from one parent species being separated somehow so they do not interbreed and then evolving separately.
Sounds pretty good. Does this protochicken still exist at all, or has it become extinct? What were some of it's more primitive features? Did it have fully developed senses yet?
Better yet, can someone reccomend a book, a museum, or ...[text shortened]... ith each other. That would be awesome to find out! Thanks, guys!
I don't know the specific mechanism by which the chicken evolved, and don't have any specific ideas about it, because I don't care enough to spend the time to look into it. Your questions can only really be answered by you deciding exactly how far back in time you stop calling the bird a chicken.
The common ancestor of your list was probably a small rodent like animal, but I haven't really looked into the theories or fossil evidence behind the TOE in that kind of depth.
The idea of "species" are a scientific classification that does not perfectly fit in with nature. It's pretty good, but not perfect. For example, horses and donkeys can interbreed to create a third type of animal, the mule or hinny.
OK, I'll put a little time into this.
The breeds and varieties of domestic chickens known today are generally believed to have descended mainly from the Red Jungle Fowl (Gallus bankiva, also called Gallus gallus) of Southeast Asia where it still exists in the wild.
http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/eggs/res08-whatis.html
Now, turkeys and chickens have some similarities. As I said, I haven't really looked into the matter, but I imagine the two had a common ancestor at some point in the past. Since chickens seem to have evolved in southeast asia, and turkeys in the New World, I imagine that their common ancestor was separated geographically either by actual continental separation through tectonics or the common ancestor came across the same way the Native Americans did - land bridge, or however they did. The turkeys evolved in America, the chickens evolved in the Old World, and now the two species cannot interbreed (or can they? I have no idea actually).
Originally posted by AThousandYoungif you believe that evolution crap than you believe that we used to be monkeys🙂
The problem with answering your question is that you misunderstand the theory of evolution (TOE). Instead of organisms jumping from species to species, there's a very gradual change. Species differentiate not by one species coming from another, but from one parent species being separated somehow so they do not interbreed and then evolving separatel ...[text shortened]... the Old World, and now the two species cannot interbreed (or can they? I have no idea actually).
but i can admit that the indians were only five feet tall and now we are anywhere from five to six feet but i dont think so
A Thousand Young, thanks for your answer. I really apologize to you, I didnt mean to lead you on, I was posting a bit sarcastically.
I do not believe in evolution. I am not saying that I am a bible thumper, and I am not going to jam anything down your throat.
My point was only to bring in some valid, unanswerable questions. The theory of evolution is far from proven fact, and quite a bit of speculation, guessing, and blind faith is involved.
Prove me wrong in any of these statements:
1. Creatures have naturally evolved over millions of years, beginning from a few species, multiplying into many with many different specialized features.
2. The universe was created by intelligent design, and every creature on earth was created as is.
3. There is a dragon asleep in the center of the Earth.
4. There is intelligent life in the universe, on planets other than Earth.
None of these are completely disprovable, and none of them are provable right now. They are all a matter of faith, belief, preference, education, whatever. (Actually, I just threw in #3 because you cant prove it, even though nobody believes it.) You can call #1, #2, and #4 religions, because they cannot be proven directly, yet.
Now let me put up one more:
5. I have a chicken egg, and if it is properly cared for, a chicken will hatch from it. There has never been anything else, besides a chicken, witnessed to have come from a chicken egg.
#5 is fact. It is absolutely unarguable. Any argument would rely on theory, and imagination, and creativity. There is absolutely no proof to the contrary of #5. Im not saying that there will never will be, just that there is none now.
We know that from a chicken egg comes a chicken, and from a chicken comes a chicken egg. We also know that the egg must be cared for to survive, while a chicken is self-sufficient. Therefore, with the facts we have RIGHT NOW, the chicken came before the egg.
One more(because it's fun):
#6. There used to exist an island populated by dwarves and elves, and they could use magic. It disappeared due to plate tectonics, but there must be remains somewhere in the ocean, and Im going to find them.
I may be nuts, but you simply cannot prove me wrong, until I turn over every last rock in the sea. And then Ill just say that they must be buried a bit deeper.
Two things:
It all depends on how you define a chicken egg: Is it a egg that comes from a chicken (in this case the chicken was first) OR is it an egg from wich a chicken is born (in that case the egg was first).
Secondly: Just because there isn't any proof of the contrary, doesn't make it true. In math we have a Continuum Hypothesis, we cannot prove the contrary so far, but we cannot proof the CH itself either. Mathematicians DID show that no contradictions arise when one assume CH or the contrary of it.
Originally posted by TheMaster37
It all depends on how you define a chicken egg: Is it a egg that comes from a chicken (in this case the chicken was first) OR is it an egg from wich a chicken is born (in that case the egg was first).
It also depends on how you define a chicken. Are you talking about all chickens, or just one specific chicken? If you're talking about a specifc chicken, I don't believe we have any evidence that a chicken has ever come into existince without first being an egg - with the possible exception of the first chicken, which, of course, gets us back to the question of which chicken we're talking about.🙄
Polynikes -
You're welcome.
The theory of evolution is far from proven fact, and quite a bit of speculation, guessing, and blind faith is involved.
I think it's important to be careful when talking about "proof". I feel only two things can be proved - my existence and the existence of my perceptions.
5. I have a chicken egg, and if it is properly cared for, a chicken will hatch from it. There has never been anything else, besides a chicken, witnessed to have come from a chicken egg.
I could make up scenarios, or models, or hypotheses, in which 5. is incorrect. You could not absolutely prove these to be invalid. For example:
A) You don't have a chicken egg, it's an hallucination.
B) Your egg is really an elephant egg.
C) Aliens on a planet twelve light years from here witnessed a lobster hatch from a chicken egg.
D) Nobody's ever seen a chicken hatch from an egg. Any memories you have of this were implanted in your brain by the CIA.
E) Nobody's ever seen a chicken hatch from an egg. God created the universe twelve seconds ago, and chickens do not exist. He simply made you with the memories you have.
All we can do is make likely models that make sense and seem to be useful. Keeping them as simple as possible while still having them explain in detail as many detailed observations as possible makes them the most useful, since you have the least limitations and have to deal with the fewest variables, and can make the most detailed predictions. The Theory of Evolution blows Creationism away in these respects.