Revealed! The egg came first

On Sun, 28 May 2006 15:49:51 GMT, [email hidden] (Curly

Sue) said:

The answer has been decided by an expert team of a geneticist,
philosopher, and chicken farmer.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/index.html

Nonetheless, the question remains a great rhetorical device. 🙂

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Well. that certainly explains why humans can spawn so many jacka**es.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Curly Sue) said:

The answer has been decided by an expert team of a geneticist,
philosopher, and chicken farmer.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/index.html

Nonetheless, the question remains a great rhetorical device. 🙂

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Egg-laying reptiles predated birds by a bunch of millions of years. Any
"scientist" who just figured that out ought to turn in his union card.

Isaac

(Curly Sue) said:

The answer has been decided by an expert team of a geneticist,
philosopher, and chicken farmer.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/index.html

Heh..back when I was at university, in the late seventeenth century, I
got an A for a persuasive writing assignment in which I proved
definitively which came first, the chicken or the egg. <grin>

It's really rather obvious; I wonder how much they got for their
research grant?

Anne

--
Personal: http://www.SheDevilsBlog.com
Fathers Rights: http://www.DadsRights.org
Raw Food: http://www.AdventuresInRawFood.com
The Internet: http://www.TheInternetPatrol.com

Anne Mitchell Young said:

(Curly Sue) said:

The answer has been decided by an expert team of a geneticist,
philosopher, and chicken farmer.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/index.html

Heh..back when I was at university, in the late seventeenth century, I
got an A for a persuasive writing assignment in which I proved
definitively which came first, the chicken or the egg. <grin>

It's really rather obvious; I wonder how much they got for their
research grant?

Anne

As a lawyer, I'm surprized you didn't read all the fine print<G>.
Disney sponsored the debate as a promo for their Chicken Little movie!

Haven't noticed any posts from you in a while, so if you've just
returned, welcome back. If I've just been blind, good to hear you
again.

maxine in ri

isw said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Curly Sue) said:

The answer has been decided by an expert team of a geneticist,
philosopher, and chicken farmer.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/index.html

Nonetheless, the question remains a great rhetorical device. 🙂

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Egg-laying reptiles predated birds by a bunch of millions of years. Any
"scientist" who just figured that out ought to turn in his union card.

Isaac

So what you're saying is that question should have been: which came
first, the lizard (or fish) or the egg? 🙂

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Anne Mitchell Young said:

(Curly Sue) said:

The answer has been decided by an expert team of a geneticist,
philosopher, and chicken farmer.

Heh..back when I was at university, in the late seventeenth century, I
got an A for a persuasive writing assignment in which I proved
definitively which came first, the chicken or the egg. <grin>

You, of all people, should know that it's the male who comes first.
hehe

Sheldon Rights

Curly Sue said:

isw said:

Egg-laying reptiles predated birds by a bunch of millions of years. Any
"scientist" who just figured that out ought to turn in his union card.

So what you're saying is that question should have been: which came
first, the lizard (or fish) or the egg? 🙂

Well, technically, the "egg" goes back to our days as single-celled
organisms (bacteria, et al).

Since then there have been refinements, such as eggs that could become
multi-celled organisms*

I think the semantic hair the panel split was that it's not a chicken
until the thing coming out is a chicken, and before that it's something
else. And the determination is that the parents of the first chicken
weren't chickens, genetically speaking.

--Blair

* - isn't it fascinating: this single cell laid by the hen, all within
itself, merely reorganizes its molecules, never gaining anything but
maybe some transferred gases and heat, and becomes a living, breathing
thing... This of all facts makes me feel a little guilty eating an
egg, when I would never feel guilty eating a chicken. I guess I regard
that process as more elegant and wondrous than its result.

Sheldon said:

You, of all people, should know that it's the male who comes first.
hehe

Sheldon proves his inadequacies...again...

--Blair

Blair P. Houghton said:

Curly Sue said:

isw said:

Egg-laying reptiles predated birds by a bunch of millions of years. Any
"scientist" who just figured that out ought to turn in his union card.

So what you're saying is that question should have been: which came
first, the lizard (or fish) or the egg? 🙂

Well, technically, the "egg" goes back to our days as single-celled
organisms (bacteria, et al).

Irrelevant and incorrect.

(a) The chicken-and-egg debate is referring to chicken eggs -- not the
eggs from any earlier organism. Otherwise, the whole thing is trivial.

(b) Bacteria don't have eggs. Eggs are a byproduct of sex. Bacteria do
not come in male and female -- this simply divide. No sex -- no eggs.

Quoted message said:

Since then there have been refinements, such as eggs that could become
multi-celled organisms*

I think the semantic hair the panel split was that it's not a chicken
until the thing coming out is a chicken, and before that it's something
else. And the determination is that the parents of the first chicken
weren't chickens, genetically speaking.

But their eggs were chicken eggs, otherwise they would not have
developed into a chicken. So I think you just proved that the eggs
came first.

--
For email, use usenet-20060507[at]spamex[dot]com

"LurfysMa" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

(b) Eggs are a byproduct of sex.

? Fertilized eggs are. Chickens lay eggs all the time without sex.

nancy

LurfysMa said:

Blair P. Houghton said:

Curly Sue said:

On Sun, 28 May 2006 20:50:22 -0700, isw <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Egg-laying reptiles predated birds by a bunch of millions of years. Any
>"scientist" who just figured that out ought to turn in his union card.

So what you're saying is that question should have been: which came
first, the lizard (or fish) or the egg? 🙂

Well, technically, the "egg" goes back to our days as single-celled
organisms (bacteria, et al).

Irrelevant and incorrect.

Uh, wrong and wrong. Part of the paradox is figuring out what the
question is supposed to mean.

Quoted message said:

(a) The chicken-and-egg debate is referring to chicken eggs -- not the
eggs from any earlier organism. Otherwise, the whole thing is trivial.

It's still trivial, as the chicken is still evolving.

Quoted message said:

(b) Bacteria don't have eggs. Eggs are a byproduct of sex. Bacteria do
not come in male and female -- this simply divide. No sex -- no eggs.

Once the chromosomes are in the egg, you can't tell how it got that
way. Sex isn't relevant.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Since then there have been refinements, such as eggs that could become
multi-celled organisms*

I think the semantic hair the panel split was that it's not a chicken
until the thing coming out is a chicken, and before that it's something
else. And the determination is that the parents of the first chicken
weren't chickens, genetically speaking.

But their eggs were chicken eggs, otherwise they would not have
developed into a chicken. So I think you just proved that the eggs
came first.

Yes, that's exactly what I just said. They weren't chickens, but their
egg was. What are you drinking?

--Blair

Nancy Young wrote on 29 May 2006 in rec.food.cooking

Quoted message said:

"LurfysMa" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

(b) Eggs are a byproduct of sex.

? Fertilized eggs are. Chickens lay eggs all the time without sex.

nancy

Those poor chickens!

--
-Alan

"Mr Libido Incognito" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Nancy Young wrote on 29 May 2006 in rec.food.cooking

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

? Fertilized eggs are. Chickens lay eggs all the time without sex.

Quoted message said:

Those poor chickens!

(laugh) Life ain't fair, is it.

nancy

Nancy Young said:

"LurfysMa" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

(b) Eggs are a byproduct of sex.

? Fertilized eggs are. Chickens lay eggs all the time without sex.

Um, so do primates... except for italians and hillybillys, they
reproduce by binary fission. <G>

Ahahahahaha. . . .

Sheldon

"Sheldon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nancy Young said:

"LurfysMa" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

(b) Eggs are a byproduct of sex.

? Fertilized eggs are. Chickens lay eggs all the time without sex.

Um, so do primates...

Heh, yeah, I know that, decided not to go there.

nancy

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Curly Sue) said:

The answer has been decided by an expert team of a geneticist,
philosopher, and chicken farmer.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/index.html

Nonetheless, the question remains a great rhetorical device. 🙂

This makes a lot of sense. Now, if only we could all agree that
scrambled eggs just are not worth eating without a little Heinz Ketchup
on the side! 🙂

Stan Horwitz said:

Quoted message said:

Nonetheless, the question remains a great rhetorical device. 🙂

This makes a lot of sense. Now, if only we could all agree that
scrambled eggs just are not worth eating without a little Heinz Ketchup
on the side! 🙂

I am not much of a ketchup eater but I have to admit that it does give a
bit of a boost to scrambled eggs that have been overcooked. If you cook
them only until they are still a little snotty they have lots of flavour
and are nice and moist.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Curly Sue) said:

isw said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Curly Sue) said:

The answer has been decided by an expert team of a geneticist,
philosopher, and chicken farmer.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/index.html

Nonetheless, the question remains a great rhetorical device. 🙂

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Egg-laying reptiles predated birds by a bunch of millions of years. Any
"scientist" who just figured that out ought to turn in his union card.

Isaac

So what you're saying is that question should have been: which came
first, the lizard (or fish) or the egg? 🙂

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Lower forms of life came first. What I would love to know is where the
evolutionary trip all species are on is going. Alas, I won't be around
to find out.

"Stan Horwitz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Curly Sue) said:

isw said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Curly Sue) wrote:

> The answer has been decided by an expert team of a geneticist,
> philosopher, and chicken farmer.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/index.html
>
> Nonetheless, the question remains a great rhetorical device. 🙂
>
> Sue(tm)
> Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Egg-laying reptiles predated birds by a bunch of millions of years.
Any
"scientist" who just figured that out ought to turn in his union
card.

Isaac

So what you're saying is that question should have been: which came
first, the lizard (or fish) or the egg? 🙂

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Lower forms of life came first. What I would love to know is where the
evolutionary trip all species are on is going. Alas, I won't be around
to find out.

What makes you think you're around now?