554
Way to let philosophical ponderings down (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 month ago by Stamets@lemmy.world to c/funny@sh.itjust.works
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 91 points 1 month ago

This particular philosophical question was shot down by geneticists quite some time ago.

The first chicken was created due to a mutation. Genome mutations occur during cell division, in eggs, and in the mitochondrial genome.

The first chicken hatched from the first chicken egg. Therefore, the egg came first.

[-] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 42 points 1 month ago

Also eggs existed in other species long before chickens.

[-] Tippon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 1 month ago

Surely a chicken egg is an egg laid by a chicken though, not an egg containing a chicken, otherwise unfertilised eggs wouldn't be chicken eggs.

If the mutation occurs in the creature inside the egg, then it makes sense to me that that's where the new species begins. The chicken came first 🤔

I'm going to stop saying chicken and egg now, it's getting ridiculous... 😁

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

The first chicken was created from a mutation of another species. That mutation occurred before the egg was completely formed, making it the first chicken egg. The first chicken wasn’t born until it hatched from that egg.

Therefore, there was a chicken egg before there was a chicken.

[-] TheFrogThatFlies@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

So, by this you say that that egg when the egg was first laid it was not a chicken egg, but after the mutation it became a chicken egg? How do you determine if an unhatched egg is a chicken egg then? At this point I think we're better off calling all eggs Schrodinger eggs, because we never know what they are until hatched.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Well, technically that’s true. Without analyzing a fertilized egg, we don’t know with certainty what the result will be.

For example, a woman could give birth to an albino without knowing before birth. Albinism is a mutation in the melanin production gene. The mutation forms in-utero. The equivalent to an in-utero mutation in an oviparous (egg-laying) animal would occur inside the egg.

So the direct ancestor of the chicken laid an egg that mutated into the first chicken egg, then the first chicken hatched from it.

[-] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago

But is chicken-ness actually defined by genetics? An important characteristic of a chicken is its domesticated status, if you consider the birds they descend from, they are remarkably similar, and it's hard to imagine that any one mutation would have been what caused people to start calling them by their own name or considering them as a separate species. It's possible that the first chicken became the first chicken when it was captured by humans, and so preceded the first chicken egg.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yup. The domesticated chicken has changed quite a bit since domestication began, but the species is still a domesticated chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus). The primary ancestor of the domestic chicken, the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus), birthed the first domesticated chicken between 7,000-10,000 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken

[-] Mango@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Okay, but that wasn't a chicken egg. It was laid by the chicken predecessor, and therefore the chicken came first!

I'm really good at MTG.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

The way I heard it, the egg came first, it just wasn't a chicken egg

[-] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 57 points 1 month ago

I give people that can pull of casual sex like this a lot of credit. I'm not old fashioned, I'd just be anxious as heck about an intimate moment being one of the only things I'm being judged upon by another person. It's such a hard thing to practice and be truly good at (it's inherently awkward, and porn certainly doesn't count as practice). It's a joke, but comments like this just make it feel almost like a competition. I'd feel like I was taking a big exam or on stage without a rehearsal.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 18 points 1 month ago

Sex is not a performance sport

[-] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 month ago

Wait, then who are these people sitting at a table next to my bed, holding cards with numbers on them?

[-] scutiger@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

They're playing poker.

[-] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago

If I don't feel like I can have a good mutual laugh during, I'm not interested. Not many people I personally can achieve that kind of chemistry with in one night.

[-] IndiBrony@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Not unless it's your fetish

[-] raoul@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 month ago

For me, I can't go on without a referee in the room

[-] 5715@feddit.org 12 points 1 month ago

The way I see it, competitive casual sex works better when all parties know that there's a competition.

[-] Speculater@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

The best of the best get to stand awkwardly in an office waiting to find out why their bits are itchy. Winners!

[-] 5715@feddit.org 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Applicable if your competition is about combinatorics.

Come on, we can do better than counting the ol' in-and-out, competition-wise.

Spreading genes is so 2 mya

[-] DragonsInARoom@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

🤣

this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
554 points (96.9% liked)

Funny

7006 readers
1992 users here now

General rules:

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
TheDude@sh.itjust.works
kersploosh@sh.itjust.works
example@reddthat.com
VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.works