The Instigator
Strycora
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
dairygirl4u2c
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Neither the chicken nor the egg came first; they are dependently arisen.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Strycora
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/27/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 518 times Debate No: 58228
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Strycora

Pro

Hello,
I see that you really think you're onto something in your so called "scientific" conjecture that the egg came before the chicken. I argue that "scientific" could be better worded as arbitrary or essentialist. Chickens never were without eggs, eggs never were without chickens. They are dependently arisen. I will go into more detail about this in the next two rounds.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

I'm not sure what you mean by 'essentialist'

towards the end of this post is my previous debate initial post so my position is better stated.

but to address you concerns. you are arguing that chickens must come from eggs, and eggs must come from chickens, to my understanding, so neither came first.

the problem is that we must draw a line for what constitutes a chicken. when we do that, an egg will arise that has a chicken that fills the DNA criteria at the line we've drawn.

before getting further into this, i'd like to clarify a big hypothetical i used. instead of the regressive train wreck scenario i used below, i would rather use every chicken in existence now. it would be impractical or impossible to do given chicken ancesters are extinct, but if we bred each chicken alive now, with ancester generations further and further back, there would be a point where mating stops. at this point we use the last chicken that is able to mate back into acestery, and map its DNA, and use this as the chicken threshhold.

you are arguing essnetially what others have argued, as i had predicted in my opening posts in threads. that the parents of those first chickens are so close, that they too must be said to be a chicken if the egg is said to be a chicken. not necessarily. we can call them chicken hybrids if you would like, but it is not insignficant that those parents cannot breed with modern chickens, but the chicken in the egg can. if we use modern chickens as the prototype, those ancester species should not constitute chickens proper.

======================

answer: the egg.

the lithmus test for whether the chicken or egg came first, should be a defined list of DNA being met.

science is inexact in listing what constitutes a species. if the animal meets criteria like two wings a beak two chicken legs etc, then it is a chicken. the problem is that this is an inexact science. it is sufficient for everyday use, sure. but a line has to be drawn. how do we draw it? the only way is to make a criteria in DNA and stick to it.

we run into a problem similar to someone trying to sell something. a man wants to sell his 57 chevy for ten thousand. would be take a penny less? sure. two pennies? you see where i'm going with this. the man must set a limit. 9500 and not a penny less? so someone were to offer him a penny less and he does take it, is it really a firm limit? in practice, the man might take it, but we all know a point must be drawn.

in practice, scientists might take a nucleotide or piece of DNA less, but a point must be drawn.

what constitutes a chicken then will have a firm limit. in the line of chicken like animals before a chicken, there will be close calls no doubt. but it will be one animal that will evetually fill the criteria, meet the DNA match's minimum. and that animal will be first an egg, which hatches into the chicken that meets the match.

practically, the parents of the chicken might be called chickens in everyday use, but a line indeed must be drawn, so they technically are not chickens.

------------------------

con will most likely offer no reason why we shouldn't be able to define what DNA is required to be a chicken, and have a cut off point. if we do this cut off point, the parents would not be chickens.

con will likely argue that because the chicken can mate with its parents or are much like them, that we should be able to call its parents chickens too.

but we have to have that cut off in DNA and have cut off with parents, even if they are very similar. cause in fact, it's not even necessarily arbitrary.
if we have a regression for what are clearly chickens, and what are clearly not chickens but are ancesters.... eventually you will find some that cannot mate, a true hallmark for speciation.
for example. x is not chicken. y is a chicken. they cannot mate. y's parents cannot mate with X's offspring. if you keep going back in time with the chicken, and forward in time with the non chicken, eventually you will get to a point where they can in fact mate. this is around the cutoff for chickens. once we get to the point that they can mate, we have to step back a generation to the point they can't mate. and then we would map their DNA. this would be a highly complex project, finding those who can mate and those who can't. and in some ways it'd be impossible since ansesters of chickens are extinct. but, we know in principle this point exists. that theoretical point is the DNA cut off point. the first chicken would be the first in that train wreck of possible mating that can't mate with its acestorial counterparts.

there would surely have to be a point where the offspring couldn't mate with teh ancester, but the parents could. it has to happen at some point. and it might not be exact in practice.... the offspring might not be able to mate usually, but at certain attempts could, and or its offspring might be able to but the parent cant, cause there is a lot of variability with being able to mate or not, gentetically and in practice. but there is a certain theoretical point where it's not possible to mate. and this is a species that comes first as an egg.

perhaps we could make note of the fact that the parent is so similar to its offspring, that we could call them chicken hybrids. this is because we'd have a line of non chicken ancesters with a line of chicken lineage.... and a lot of cross over.
Debate Round No. 1
Strycora

Pro

When I say that your definition of "chicken" is essentialist, I mean that the DNA of any particular chicken is unique, so the exact genetic code of any one chicken cannot be the genetic code required for someone to be a chicken, otherwise there is only one chicken in the world.

I argue that a chicken egg did not pop out of the vagina of a non chicken, because mother and child are too closely related for there to be speciation between them. I argue that speciation instead occurs over many generations, and that chickens cannot breed with non chickens because they are genetically very far apart, not because they are genetically only slightly different.

If you say that two non chickens bred and made the first chicken, I oppose that position because I bet you that either of the parents could breed with the child.

Chickenhood did not begin suddenly. As the species that I have been referring to as "non-chickens" continued to take part in evolution, a few characteristics of one subgroup of non-chicken became more and more pronounced over time. This subgroup was initially able to breed with the main group, but as the members of the subgroup mostly chose to breed with creatures most like them, the subgroup gradually became more and more differentiated from the group and speciation slowly set in.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

the DNA point is really moot at this point, cause i admit i don't need it. the standard is whether the ancesteral chickens can breed with modern chickens or not. we have to set a limit on what constitutes a chicken. and the only way to not arbitrarily do it, is by that method. there was one chicken that first came that can breed with modern chickens. in reality, there might be a first chicken that can breed with "some' of today's chickens. we could make the rule that they are considered chicken if they can breed with all our modern chickens, or we can make the rule that they can breed with at least some, or one, modern chicken. the issue isn't what exactly the standard is, it's that we have a standard at all.

and if we have that standard, there will be one chicken that come first as an egg, that can breed with some or all our modern chickens. it is significant that that chickens parents cannot breed with modern chickens. that first chicken's parents would be chicken hybrids. that is, they can breed with their offrpring and animals like their offspring, but they can't breed with modern chickens. those hybrids can also breed with their sufficinetly close ancesters. that is what makes them hybrids. it doesn't make them chickens proper.
the first chicken can breed with modern chickens, or its sufficiently close ancesters, but given they can breed with modern hickens is sufficient to say they are chickens.

bottomline is that we have to have a rule, a cut off point, for what constitutes a chicken.

con is trying to say chickens and eggs are dependant on each other. perhaps, it's not a terrible argument. but where do you draw the line at chickens? surely there will be things in a chicken proper and chicken hybrids ancestery that is not even remotely like chickens. so where do we draw the line, then?
again, how does con suggest we define a chicken?
wtih his approach, we have no real method of attack.

my approach is not arbitrary and sets what are clear, necessary, limits, on what onsittutes a chicken.
Debate Round No. 2
Strycora

Pro

This is what I understand of the argument.
There is a continuum whose leftmost endpoint is labeled "Ancestral bird" and whose rightmost endpoint is labeled "Chicken". This continuum is a continuum of "Chicken Hybrids." The farther left you are on the continuum, the more Ancestral birds you can breed with, or the more likely you are to breed with an ancestral bird in nature, and the less Chickens you can breed with, or the less likely you are to breed with a Chicken in nature. This makes the assumption that any Chicken can breed with all Chickens and no Ancestral birds, and vice versa. If this is not the case, we have no reason to formally make either category.

The problem with the model arises when we consider the first Chicken. If there is only one Chicken in the world that hatched from the first Chicken egg, who does the Chicken breed with? Obviously not other Chickens, but far-right Chicken Hybrids. Would the offspring of the first Chicken and aforementioned Chicken Hybrid be in between its parents on the Chicken spectrum? Would the son be more like the ancestors than the father?

I'm trying to point out that the point at which evolving Chickens can no longer breed with Ancestral birds has some degree of inderminacy. A process as macroscopic as evolution does not "turn over" in terms of speciation all at once, but gradually, until the population on the far right of the spectrum is sufficiently large and stable that everyone in the population is virtually certain to breed with a genetic neighbor.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

"This makes the assumption that any Chicken can breed with all Chickens and no Ancestral birds, and vice versa. If this is not the case, we have no reason to formally make either category."

im not sure i'm following you on this. can you explain it more?

perhaps con is trying to argue, that the chicken and eggs are dependant on each other, and we can't define chicken. maybe, if we take the approach of not defining chicken. but then we are simply ignoring what we see are clearly chicken, and that tehre are clearly nonchicken ancestors, and that there must be a way to separate them. if we do try to separate them, we must draw a line. whether they can breed with modern chickens is the least arbitary most accurat approach.

"If there is only one Chicken in the world that hatched from the first Chicken egg, who does the Chicken breed with? Obviously not other Chickens, but far-right Chicken Hybrids. Would the offspring of the first Chicken and aforementioned Chicken Hybrid be in between its parents on the Chicken spectrum? Would the son be more like the ancestors than the father?"

i'm still having a problem followng you, but will do the best i can. a first chicken would breed wth chickens proper (those who can breed with our modern chickens)and chicken hybrids. and yes, the first chicken would be mroe like the chicken ancesters than modern chickens. but this is simply the consequnce of us having to define a point of chicken.

"I'm trying to point out that the point at which evolving Chickens can no longer breed with Ancestral birds has some degree of inderminacy. A process as macroscopic as evolution does not "turn over" in terms of speciation all at once, but gradually, until the population on the far right of the spectrum is sufficiently large and stable that everyone in the population is virtually certain to breed with a genetic neighbor."

i actually forsook my DNA points, but they might be worth keeping. when we consider human, homo sapiens, and neanderthals as examples. we see that interbreeding occurred, but they were distinct species, albeit hominid species. this means that tehre are more specific criteria that could be used, psysiologically etc, to distinguish them. often, i know scientist do use DNA distinguishments. i would suppose it's not an exact science. but, as with my DNA regression points, it has to be drawn soemwhere.
perhaps the best approach, though, is to not go along with those accepted technicques of speciation, atl east in regards to this debate. we need clear lines of differientiation, and it doesn't get any more clear than whether they can breed or not.
again, this admits that perhaps a far back chicken can breed with modern chickens. and perhaps its offsrping can't, there's so much variability. but there is indisputably one first chicken that could breed with modern chickens, and that chicken came in the form of an egg.

perhaps my digression into DNA etc was not the optimal approach. it is worth considerating. it would seem will continue to argue that there's just an inherent degree of indeterminancy and that the chicken and egg are dependant on each other. this sacrifices too much in terms of definitiveness though, that if we at all try to define this stuff, we have no choice but to find a way to draw a line. otherwise we are left with clear chickens, clear not chicken ancesters, and no way to distinguish anything in between.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
Regardless of which way the question is asked (at the end of my previous comment): There is a determinate answer.
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
Ancient Male Bird A mates with Ancient Female Bird A
This makes Ancient Bird B.
B.Bird mates with another Bird A. Makes C. C mates with Bs and As. and so on and so forth.
Evolution, inter-species mating...however the genetics alter over time.

Throughout this time and all the different mating Bird Z egg is laid. Bird Z is what we commonly call today's chicken. This is our "baseline" for what is a chicken.

Now (hypothetically) Birds Q and Y mated to create this egg. Neither Q nor Y are considered chickens.

However their egg hatches into a chicken. This is just an egg of "proto-chickens" this is not an actual chicken egg. Chickens did not lay this egg, but the egg hatched a chicken.

To the question: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" The egg came first.
BUT
The question" Which came first, the chicken, or the CHICKEN-EGG"? The answer is the Chicken.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
it would be next to impossible to pin point that egg, but it should in principle exist.
Posted by Strycora 3 years ago
Strycora
Excellent debate. While I see where you are coming from, I still believe that it is impossible to know exactly which was the first bird born that could breed with the modern chicken and that an ancestral species of bird gradually became more chicken like, meaning that we can't pin down the one, original "chicken egg" but lets see what others think.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
Strycoradairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: pro fulfilled his BoP
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Strycoradairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: is correct about contin'm