<Comment deleted by user>
HUMANS
umm,Chicken
But it doesn't matter; at some point in evolutionary history when there were no chickens, two birds that were almost-but-not-quite chickens mated and laid an egg that hatched into the first chicken. If you are prepared to call that egg a chicken's egg, then the egg came first.
This is my Thought
This is my Thought
Your theory is wrong, research the evolutionary theory, which is proven, dont invent wild stuff. The eggs appreared soon after the amniotes, somewhere around the carboniferous, some 320+- years ago.
The chicken is a "modern" animal, it descends from the dinosaurs. So, they have existed at most 70 million years, but i really doubt the chickens are that old.
The chickens inherited the capacity of laying eggs. But the egg is a very old feature of animals. Mammals used to lay eggs before the placental mammals appeared (though there are still a couple of egg laying mammal survivors).
The chicken is a "modern" animal, it descends from the dinosaurs. So, they have existed at most 70 million years, but i really doubt the chickens are that old.
The chickens inherited the capacity of laying eggs. But the egg is a very old feature of animals. Mammals used to lay eggs before the placental mammals appeared (though there are still a couple of egg laying mammal survivors).
@Skyplazz said in #34:
> But it doesn't matter; at some point in evolutionary history when there were no chickens, two birds that were almost-but-not-quite chickens mated and laid an egg that hatched into the first chicken. If you are prepared to call that egg a chicken's egg, then the egg came first.
> This is my Thought
You clearly dont understand evolution.
There is no such thing as first "Insert animal here".
By definition, and proven biologically, the offspring of any being, is of the same species as the parents.
Offspring are always very similar to their parents, though they always have small differences, they are not carbon copied. They might have slightly longer-shorter claws, more or less fur, taller-shorter, fatter, thinner, etc. But only the fittest survive.
Due to the many mass extinction events, a group of animals that survived, suddenly have way more space to move around, and are not confined to a little capsule of terrain. then, as the colonies spreads / separates and venture into different ecosystems, the requirements for survival change between one system and the other, and only the fittest survive. The genes that that are carried to the survivors, are passed to the newborns. This is a slow process, and one generation is really not too different from the previous, so, if the first ones are not chickens, neither the latter. And if the first one are chickens, the offspring are chickens.
After some time, both populations become so different (because they are pronouncing the features needed to survive in their own environment, little by little, generation by generation) that either wont want to mate in the wild if they encounter themselves, or are not able to do so. Thats when we draw the line of "this is one species and this one is the other" In essence, you are speaking about the same species or the same type of animal, but both developed different features over time due to different requirements of survival that lead to develop certain features in one side, and another set of features in the other one.
Its the same type of animal. We are the one drawing a line to differentiate them. So you have the same base animals, if you force x condition for survival in one side for 1000 generations, x features will eventually arise, and you get the same animals, but you force a different condition for survival for 1000 generations, y features will arise.
So, we happen to call one group chicken, and the other one duck, but both are from the same ancestor. The in between is just blurry as we dont have a fossil of each generation on both sides. We just draw the line on the fossils we do have and the differences they start to show in the period the fossils are recovered.
But, both are from the same taxonomical family, both are birds, both are theropods, both are dinosaurs.
And one final edit. Im not saying that ducks and chickens share the same direct ancester, i just used "duck" as an example. I wont look up the exact information, i dont need it as i do understand evolution and know what to look if i need, when i need. You are the one who needs to look it up to learn a bit more.
> But it doesn't matter; at some point in evolutionary history when there were no chickens, two birds that were almost-but-not-quite chickens mated and laid an egg that hatched into the first chicken. If you are prepared to call that egg a chicken's egg, then the egg came first.
> This is my Thought
You clearly dont understand evolution.
There is no such thing as first "Insert animal here".
By definition, and proven biologically, the offspring of any being, is of the same species as the parents.
Offspring are always very similar to their parents, though they always have small differences, they are not carbon copied. They might have slightly longer-shorter claws, more or less fur, taller-shorter, fatter, thinner, etc. But only the fittest survive.
Due to the many mass extinction events, a group of animals that survived, suddenly have way more space to move around, and are not confined to a little capsule of terrain. then, as the colonies spreads / separates and venture into different ecosystems, the requirements for survival change between one system and the other, and only the fittest survive. The genes that that are carried to the survivors, are passed to the newborns. This is a slow process, and one generation is really not too different from the previous, so, if the first ones are not chickens, neither the latter. And if the first one are chickens, the offspring are chickens.
After some time, both populations become so different (because they are pronouncing the features needed to survive in their own environment, little by little, generation by generation) that either wont want to mate in the wild if they encounter themselves, or are not able to do so. Thats when we draw the line of "this is one species and this one is the other" In essence, you are speaking about the same species or the same type of animal, but both developed different features over time due to different requirements of survival that lead to develop certain features in one side, and another set of features in the other one.
Its the same type of animal. We are the one drawing a line to differentiate them. So you have the same base animals, if you force x condition for survival in one side for 1000 generations, x features will eventually arise, and you get the same animals, but you force a different condition for survival for 1000 generations, y features will arise.
So, we happen to call one group chicken, and the other one duck, but both are from the same ancestor. The in between is just blurry as we dont have a fossil of each generation on both sides. We just draw the line on the fossils we do have and the differences they start to show in the period the fossils are recovered.
But, both are from the same taxonomical family, both are birds, both are theropods, both are dinosaurs.
And one final edit. Im not saying that ducks and chickens share the same direct ancester, i just used "duck" as an example. I wont look up the exact information, i dont need it as i do understand evolution and know what to look if i need, when i need. You are the one who needs to look it up to learn a bit more.
Eggs come from chickens and chickens come from eggs: that’s the basis of this ancient riddle. But eggs – which are just female sex cells – evolved more than a billion years ago, whereas chickens have been around for just 10,000 years. So the riddle is easily solved...or is it?
Taken at face value, there is no doubt that the egg came before the chicken. We tend to think of eggs as the shelled orbs laid by birds from which their chicks hatch – unless we eat them first. But all sexually reproducing species make eggs (the specialised female sex cells). That’s 99.99 per cent of all eukaryotic life – meaning organisms that have cells with a nucleus, so all animals and plants, and everything but the simplest life forms.
As for chickens, they came into being much later. They are domesticated animals, so evolved as the result of humans purposefully selecting the least aggressive wild birds and letting them breed. This seems to have happened in several places independently, starting around 10,000 years ago.
The wild ancestor of chickens is generally agreed to be a tropical bird still living in the forests of Southeast Asia called the red junglefowl – with other junglefowl species possibly adding to the genetic mix. From these origins, humans have carried chickens around the world over the past two millennia or more.
So, eggs dramatically predate chickens. But to be fair to the spirit of the riddle, we should also consider whether a chicken’s egg predates a chicken. As humans consistently chose the tamest red junglefowls and bred them together, the genetic makeup of the resulting birds will have shifted. At some stage during this domestication process the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) evolved into a new subspecies, Gallus gallus domesticus, AKA the chicken.
In practice, it is impossible to pinpoint the moment when this happened. But in theory, at some point two junglefowl bred and their offspring was genetically different enough from the species of its parents to be classified as a chicken. This chicken would have developed within a junglefowl egg and only produced the very first chicken’s egg on reaching maturity. Looked at this way, the chicken came first.
Read more: www.newscientist.com/question/came-first-chicken-egg/#ixzz79EOyyyr4
Taken at face value, there is no doubt that the egg came before the chicken. We tend to think of eggs as the shelled orbs laid by birds from which their chicks hatch – unless we eat them first. But all sexually reproducing species make eggs (the specialised female sex cells). That’s 99.99 per cent of all eukaryotic life – meaning organisms that have cells with a nucleus, so all animals and plants, and everything but the simplest life forms.
As for chickens, they came into being much later. They are domesticated animals, so evolved as the result of humans purposefully selecting the least aggressive wild birds and letting them breed. This seems to have happened in several places independently, starting around 10,000 years ago.
The wild ancestor of chickens is generally agreed to be a tropical bird still living in the forests of Southeast Asia called the red junglefowl – with other junglefowl species possibly adding to the genetic mix. From these origins, humans have carried chickens around the world over the past two millennia or more.
So, eggs dramatically predate chickens. But to be fair to the spirit of the riddle, we should also consider whether a chicken’s egg predates a chicken. As humans consistently chose the tamest red junglefowls and bred them together, the genetic makeup of the resulting birds will have shifted. At some stage during this domestication process the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) evolved into a new subspecies, Gallus gallus domesticus, AKA the chicken.
In practice, it is impossible to pinpoint the moment when this happened. But in theory, at some point two junglefowl bred and their offspring was genetically different enough from the species of its parents to be classified as a chicken. This chicken would have developed within a junglefowl egg and only produced the very first chicken’s egg on reaching maturity. Looked at this way, the chicken came first.
Read more: www.newscientist.com/question/came-first-chicken-egg/#ixzz79EOyyyr4
<Comment deleted by user>
I found this is google
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.