3 ms·

First came the reptiles, then the chicken. Eggs are hundreds of millions of years older than chicken.

finnh 2y ago
Also I think by definition a chicken is a bird that hatches from an egg (among other defining characteristics). So th egg must have come first, as a chicken-like creature that didn't come from an egg wouldn't be a chicken.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
  I'm not sure if this is intended as serious or tongue-in-cheek. Obviously parents come before offspring. The earliest form of reproduction is just binary fission - what an amoeba does by splitting itself into two. In it's simplest (origins of life) form this is just a mechanical process of a proto-metabolism (bunch of chemicals) being split into parts that are smaller versions of the "parent", e.g. some proto-cell composed of seashore froth being whipped into smaller versions of itself. Eventually the division process became asymmetrical with the spawned child being a simpler proto-version of the adult, capable of then independently developing into the adult form. It seems life developed in the oceans before emerging onto land, so the history is probably of multi-cellular fish-precursors reproducing by spawning simpler (conceptually egg-like) versions of themselves, eventually evolving into egg-laying fish, and then egg-laying land-based animals including the dinosaurs from which birds developed. So, maybe the best answer to "which came first, chicken or egg?" is "fish".
  - finnh 2y ago
    I'm glad you couldn't tell! It's basically tongue in cheek, as the question is silly to begin with. And of course eggs predate chicken, eggs are seriously old technology. Back to the tongue in cheek: there is something easily tautological that chickens come from eggs. At some point a non-chicken laid an egg, and the first chicken was born from it. This is true regardless of which mutation one decides is "the" mutation that makes for the "first" chicken. QED it's the egg
- randomdata 2y ago
  The question is asking if the first chicken hatched from a chicken egg (the egg came first) or if the first chicken hatched from an egg of the animal that laid the egg (the chicken came first). Of course, it is just a thought experiment that is ultimately unanswerable. There is no such thing as a distinct chicken or distinct chicken egg.
randomdata 2y ago
The koan implies chicken egg, though, not any old egg. Did the proto-chicken lay a chicken egg which hatched the first chicken, or did the proto-chicken lay a proto-chicken egg which hatched the first chicken?
- StevenWaterman 2y ago
  If a chicken egg is an egg laid by a chicken, the chicken came first If a chicken egg is an egg that hatches into a chicken, the egg came first. We know that the first case is correct because an unfertilised egg laid by a chicken is called a chicken egg despite by definition not hatching into a chicken. Therefore the chicken came first
- iwontberude 2y ago
  There is this implicit bias in your question that complexity comes from a discontinuous change which can be noticed at one moment, it’s much more diffuse and gradual. Just like we won’t know we are in World War 3 for another couple years.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    Of course. Communicating that bias in a fun and relatable way is the intent of the question.
- jprete 2y ago
  I guess it depends on whether the crucial mutation that flipped the organism from "non-chicken" to "chicken" happened before or after fertilization! Or alternatively we can say that the germ line went from 49% chicken to 50% chicken to 51% chicken? Biology is really a continuous state space anyway and trying to push things into categories too hard will break them.
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
But where is the cutoff between reptile and chicken? Given how gradual it must've been, we can therefore posit that chicken's ancestors were themselves chicken. What came first, the reptile or the egg?
- maxwell 2y ago
  The egg. But it looks like phylotypic animal body plans may have originated in cell aggregates before the development of the egg: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jez.b.21417 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jez.b.21417
- tyre 2y ago
  the evolutionary chicken of Theseus
  - thebruce87m 2y ago
    Chickens are birds and therefore dinosaurs. Therefore instead of Chicken of Theseus, I propose Chicken of Thesaurus.
    - quesera 2y ago
      > I propose Chicken of Thesaurus Which itself is surely evolved from Chicken of Thesea. And, consequently, canned tuna.
Funes- 2y ago
Is this just a mindless comment made without even skimming through the article or thinking about the actual meaning and intention behind the question? It's an intended correction I could attribute to a caricature of an autist, taking everything in absurdly literal terms. Typical of HN, in any case... The article talks about the actual origin of embryonic development mechanisms, pointing out that they could've preceded the existence of the animals that came out of them, not literally chickens and eggs (of course, its title uses those terms figuratively): >"In fact, the study shows that either the principle of embryonic development existed before animals, or multicellular development mechanisms evolved separately in C. perkinsii." It all boils down to the debate surrounding abiogenesis: the constant egg-chicken (or gamete-organism) loop does not explain how life came to be, emerging from, in principle, no life. It's paradoxical, just like trying to answer "the chicken" or "the egg". Or, as you seem to prefer, "the reptile" or "the egg".
technothrasher 2y ago
I don't think the question is whether any egg came before any chicken. That's obviously an egg, as you are implying. But the question is really, I think, what makes an egg a chicken egg? Is it an egg that is laid by a chicken or is it an egg from which a chicken hatches?
- archsurface 2y ago
  An egg laid by a chicken is also an egg from which a chicken hatches, unless significant mutation. An egg from which a chicken hatches could be a mutant laid by a non-chicken. But it's a bit sorites heap trying to decide which mutation makes the non-chicken a chicken.

Also I think by definition a chicken is a bird that hatches from an egg (among other defining characteristics). So th egg must have come first, as a chicken-like creature that didn't come from an egg wouldn't be a chicken.

HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
I'm not sure if this is intended as serious or tongue-in-cheek. Obviously parents come before offspring. The earliest form of reproduction is just binary fission - what an amoeba does by splitting itself into two. In it's simplest (origins of life) form this is just a mechanical process of a proto-metabolism (bunch of chemicals) being split into parts that are smaller versions of the "parent", e.g. some proto-cell composed of seashore froth being whipped into smaller versions of itself. Eventually the division process became asymmetrical with the spawned child being a simpler proto-version of the adult, capable of then independently developing into the adult form. It seems life developed in the oceans before emerging onto land, so the history is probably of multi-cellular fish-precursors reproducing by spawning simpler (conceptually egg-like) versions of themselves, eventually evolving into egg-laying fish, and then egg-laying land-based animals including the dinosaurs from which birds developed. So, maybe the best answer to "which came first, chicken or egg?" is "fish".
- finnh 2y ago
  I'm glad you couldn't tell! It's basically tongue in cheek, as the question is silly to begin with. And of course eggs predate chicken, eggs are seriously old technology. Back to the tongue in cheek: there is something easily tautological that chickens come from eggs. At some point a non-chicken laid an egg, and the first chicken was born from it. This is true regardless of which mutation one decides is "the" mutation that makes for the "first" chicken. QED it's the egg
randomdata 2y ago
The question is asking if the first chicken hatched from a chicken egg (the egg came first) or if the first chicken hatched from an egg of the animal that laid the egg (the chicken came first). Of course, it is just a thought experiment that is ultimately unanswerable. There is no such thing as a distinct chicken or distinct chicken egg.

randomdata 2y ago

The koan implies chicken egg, though, not any old egg. Did the proto-chicken lay a chicken egg which hatched the first chicken, or did the proto-chicken lay a proto-chicken egg which hatched the first chicken?

StevenWaterman 2y ago
If a chicken egg is an egg laid by a chicken, the chicken came first If a chicken egg is an egg that hatches into a chicken, the egg came first. We know that the first case is correct because an unfertilised egg laid by a chicken is called a chicken egg despite by definition not hatching into a chicken. Therefore the chicken came first
iwontberude 2y ago
There is this implicit bias in your question that complexity comes from a discontinuous change which can be noticed at one moment, it’s much more diffuse and gradual. Just like we won’t know we are in World War 3 for another couple years.
- randomdata 2y ago
  Of course. Communicating that bias in a fun and relatable way is the intent of the question.
jprete 2y ago
I guess it depends on whether the crucial mutation that flipped the organism from "non-chicken" to "chicken" happened before or after fertilization! Or alternatively we can say that the germ line went from 49% chicken to 50% chicken to 51% chicken? Biology is really a continuous state space anyway and trying to push things into categories too hard will break them.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago

But where is the cutoff between reptile and chicken? Given how gradual it must've been, we can therefore posit that chicken's ancestors were themselves chicken. What came first, the reptile or the egg?

maxwell 2y ago
The egg. But it looks like phylotypic animal body plans may have originated in cell aggregates before the development of the egg: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jez.b.21417 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jez.b.21417
tyre 2y ago
the evolutionary chicken of Theseus
- thebruce87m 2y ago
  Chickens are birds and therefore dinosaurs. Therefore instead of Chicken of Theseus, I propose Chicken of Thesaurus.
  - quesera 2y ago
    > I propose Chicken of Thesaurus Which itself is surely evolved from Chicken of Thesea. And, consequently, canned tuna.

Funes- 2y ago

Is this just a mindless comment made without even skimming through the article or thinking about the actual meaning and intention behind the question? It's an intended correction I could attribute to a caricature of an autist, taking everything in absurdly literal terms. Typical of HN, in any case... The article talks about the actual origin of embryonic development mechanisms, pointing out that they could've preceded the existence of the animals that came out of them, not literally chickens and eggs (of course, its title uses those terms figuratively): >"In fact, the study shows that either the principle of embryonic development existed before animals, or multicellular development mechanisms evolved separately in C. perkinsii." It all boils down to the debate surrounding abiogenesis: the constant egg-chicken (or gamete-organism) loop does not explain how life came to be, emerging from, in principle, no life. It's paradoxical, just like trying to answer "the chicken" or "the egg". Or, as you seem to prefer, "the reptile" or "the egg".

technothrasher 2y ago

I don't think the question is whether any egg came before any chicken. That's obviously an egg, as you are implying. But the question is really, I think, what makes an egg a chicken egg? Is it an egg that is laid by a chicken or is it an egg from which a chicken hatches?

archsurface 2y ago
An egg laid by a chicken is also an egg from which a chicken hatches, unless significant mutation. An egg from which a chicken hatches could be a mutant laid by a non-chicken. But it's a bit sorites heap trying to decide which mutation makes the non-chicken a chicken.