alt Hacker NewsWait, people actually debate this?
As per theory of evolution, current species were created from ancestor species. Since chicken's ancestor species obviously laid eggs. It stands to reason that first chicken came from chicken egg which came from non-chicken!
So, egg came first.
Update: fixed typo
Replies
The title is XKCD-style Nerd Sniping ;) The body of the article is about how a unicellular species formed multicellular-/animal-like groups via 'polar' division. I don't really understand what the difference between a colony of unicellular organisms and a multicellular organism is, but given the last sentence of the article, I don't think they do either:
This discovery could also shed new light on a long-standing scientific debate concerning 600 million-year-old fossils that resemble embryos, and could challenge certain traditional conceptions of multicellularity.Actually it's more like trading pokemon. You could probably breed each ancient chicken in a chain all the way up to modern chickens but you just can't breed modern chickens with ancient chickens directly.
Nah, assuming that the question is really asking whether a chicken’s egg came first or a chicken, then it stands to reason that a chicken came first, from a dinosaur’s egg, and then a chicken’s egg.
I'm going to call a non-chicken a chocken from now on. :)
A related question would be "what is a chicken", or where is the line between "non-chicken" and "chicken".
I have a problem with that. How could non-chicken laid a chicken egg.
Here it's a joke, I think. Mostly.
Yep, Aristotle was wrong. "Chicken and egg problems" aren't paradoxes, the challenge is to find which is the egg.
The problem, though, is since the shell of the egg was made by a non-chicken, the chicken's egg is not a chicken egg. So the chicken is first, and that chicken's egg is the first chicken egg.
I think a bigger debate is why did it cross the road...