The Instigator
UnbiasedSymmetry
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

The CHICKEN before the EGG?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/15/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,267 times Debate No: 23629
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)

 

UnbiasedSymmetry

Pro

In this intelligibly simple argument, all you have to do is to determine whether the chicken or the egg came first. Of course I'm AGAINST the fact that the egg was created BEFORE the chicken.

My beliefs for this particular concept, and my argument is as follows:

1) It's been scientifically proven.
2) Scientists discovered a protein found only in a chicken's ovaries that is necessary for the formation of the egg.
3) Because of this, there is no other way the egg could've been created.

It will be sort of hard to debate on a topic that has been proven by science, but I really hope you consider debating with me.
Danielle

Con

Greetings, Pro.

My opponent insinuates that the answer to this age-old question has been proven by science and indeed it has. However, since is in support of my position that the egg in fact came before the chicken.

Living things evolve through changes in their DNA, though the genetic material of an animal can ONLY change as a zygote. Zygotes are the first cells of an organism. A zygote is the original cell that divides to eventually produce all of the cells that make up the entire organism. As such, it follows that the organism we have come to know as 'chicken' must have had all of the traits applicable to chickens as a zygote.

Scientists have concluded that chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA, or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote [1]. In other words, prior to the first zygote that contained chicken DNA, all that existed were two non-chickens whose DNA morphed into the DNA that makes up chickens. Therefore, in order for a chicken to exist, it must have had chicken DNA as a zygote inside of the egg.

Two non-chickens created the first chicken DNA (zygote), while the first chicken must have evolved from a zygote that already had chicken DNA (inside of an egg). Ergo the egg came before the chicken.

Thank you and good luck.

[1] http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Debate Round No. 1
UnbiasedSymmetry

Pro

My opponent’s last statement reads that two non chickens created the egg. She claims that a genetic material of an animal can only change as a zygote, and in this case, results in the creation of the chicken. However, this has already been scientifically disapproved by English researchers. Using state of the art technology, they were able to find the key to the once unsolvable riddle: “The chicken, or the egg?”

As CNN writes: "Freeman and his team, which included colleagues from the University of Warwick, were researching a protein found in eggshells called ovocledidin-17. ... Using Britain's national supercomputer, a machine dubbed HECToR based in Edinburgh, Scotland, they were able to simulate the process of bio mineralization, or the production of minerals or solid materials inside organisms. ... They also found that the egg can't be produced without the protein ovocledidin-17 in the chickens' ovaries, so that means that the chicken must have come first."[1]

My opponents’ claim fails to prove the fact that there are essential proteins found in a non chicken. MSNBC says it more bluntly: "The scientists found that a protein found only in a chicken's ovaries is necessary for the formation of the egg, according to the paper Wednesday. The egg can therefore only exist if it has been created inside a chicken."[2]

So for the chicken to have some second, another non chicken type bird must have had similar proteins in its ovaries to then create the egg well, and this was not found in other animals, hence the chicken obviously needed to come first.

It is scientifically proven; the chicken did come before the egg.


[1] http://articles.cnn.com...

[2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

Danielle

Con

-- Rebuttal --

My opponent claims that my explanation of why the egg came before the chicken has "already been scientifically disproven by English researchers." He then proceeds to copy and paste an excerpt from the CNN article that he claims dismantles my case. However, Pro completely makes this "scientific disapproval" up -- the article NEVER says that the chicken necessarily came before the egg. As a matter of fact, the article Pro cites specifically claims that the assertion that the chicken came first has been CHALLENGED.

"Researchers in Britain have been credited with cracking the age-old conundrum about the chicken and the egg. But are they right? ... Press headlines proclaimed the answer was the chicken ... However, one of the paper's lead authors, Colin Freeman, from the University of Sheffield in northern England, told CNN that the result was not as conclusive as it seemed."

http://articles.cnn.com...

In other words, my opponent blatantly lied in asserting that his article claims that it has been "scientifically proven" that the chicken came before the egg. Instead, the article concludes by reiterating the fact that there is still an ongoing debate. In that case, my opponent is responsible for negating the scientific explanation I have stated in the last round which so far he has not.

Pro writes, "My opponents' claim fails to prove the fact that there are essential proteins found in a non chicken." This has no bearing on my case. I never 'failed to prove' anything because this was never an element of my argument, but does not negate my case anyway - nor does it establish any relevant point to Pro's case.

In fact, BOTH websites my opponent cites poke fun at the idea that the chicken must have come first as Pro asserts. If you watch the video from the second website, host Brian Williams says "Their conclusion, by the way, the formation of an egg is only possible with a protein found in a chicken's ovaries, thus the chicken must have come first... No word yet from the UK on where the chicken came from." In other words, Williams is poking fun at the fact that this discovery does not remotely answer the question (of where the chicken came from) and in fact reiterates MY case - that the chicken must have evolved from somewhere, and of course, evolution as I've explained in the last round posits exactly how two of 'somethings' evolve into something else. In other words, two non-chickens evolved to form the chicken. The egg (zygote) came first.

Pro's conclusion does not even make sense: "So for the chicken to have some second, another non chicken type bird must have had similar proteins in its ovaries to then create the egg well, and this was not found in other animals, hence the chicken obviously needed to come first." Okay, so if the chicken must have come first, then how was the chicken created? Obviously this doesn't make sense. Anyone who understands evolution can see that. So again, Pro must challenge that. He cannot say "science has proven" otherwise because BOTH of my opponent's sources negate the idea that his side has been scientifically proven.
Debate Round No. 2
UnbiasedSymmetry

Pro

UnbiasedSymmetry forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Despite being online, my opponent has chosen to forfeit the last round. Let's re-cap the debate and see why.

In Round 1 I gave an explanation for my case: Two non-chickens created the first chicken DNA (zygote), while the first chicken must have evolved from a zygote that already had chicken DNA (inside of an egg). Ergo the egg came before the chicken. Pro never denied this evolutionary fact, so for the purpose of this debate it must stand as true.

Pro's sole argument: A chicken egg cannot be produced without the protein ovocledidin-17 in the chickens' ovaries, so the chicken must have come first because this protein is only found in a chicken's ovaries.

Of course you'll notice that this objection does not remotely disprove my case. It never explains how the first chicken egg was created. This is why Pro has lost the debate. It does not challenge the fact that the first chicken must have evolved from a zygote of two non-chickens that already had chicken DNA - inside of an egg. Therefore, the egg came first.

You'll note that Pro (a) lied about the claims of his sources and (b) forfeited the last round, meaning he should lose points for Conduct. If anyone votes Sources points in a tie, it proves that people are voting based on the number of sources one uses rather than the quality of sources used. After all, my opponent not only lied about what his sources said but also posted sources that helped prove MY side. I believe I have won both of these points as well as Arguments.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by UnbiasedSymmetry 5 years ago
UnbiasedSymmetry
Congratulations to the winner :)
Posted by UnbiasedSymmetry 5 years ago
UnbiasedSymmetry
I'm really sorry to the debates I haven't replied to. I'm going through final exams in school and I don't have time for replying to any of them. I really am sorry.
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
Elvroin, I don't really understand what you're saying but it's okay because I don't need any hints. If you keep up with the debate you'll see why. My only intention was that it's rude for people to interfere with debates before they are finished. No biggie.
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 5 years ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
I do understand.
Perhaps I can neutralize the hint by offering a balancing hint.
Suppose Pro is right about the egg-producing chemical unique to chickens.
Start with the species of birds that were almost-but-not-quite chickens, and which produced eggs containing mutant offspring known as "chickens". If the parent-species became extinct sometime afterward, then the fact that chickens have a unique chemical becomes easily explained.

And such extinctions are quite common; none of our own ancestor-species are still alive, for example.
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
Elvroin, pointing out that there would be an even more rude way to do something unfair does not make your initial action any less unfair. It's still inappropriate. What do you want me to do - thank you for giving my opponent hints publicly instead of privately? Gee thanks.
Posted by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
I would suspect that the Chicken, since it would be evolutionarily impossible for an egg to evolve from something.

More likely it would be the bird evolves the ability to lay the egg.

Course, I'm a creationist, so I get the easy answer. :)
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 5 years ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Hints about any debate can be posted directly to a user via the web site messaging system, bypassing the actual debate. I would consider doing that to be more unfair than letting both sides see the hint in a comment.
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
Elvroin, while I appreciate the feedback, it's inappropriate to post potential arguments in the comments section before the debate ends. You have no idea what my opponent's arguments would have been, and it's unfair to give him hints or ideas about what to post. Fortunately your analysis is slightly wrong anyway so it's okay even if he does mention those things :)
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
Elvroin, while I appreciate the feedback, it's inappropriate to post potential arguments in the comments section before the debate ends. You have no idea what my opponent's arguments would have been, and it's unfair to give him hints or ideas about what to post. Fortunately your analysis is slightly wrong anyway so it's okay even if he does mention those things :)
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
Elvroin, while I appreciate the feedback, it's inappropriate to post potential arguments in the comments section before the debate ends. You have no idea what my opponent's arguments would have been, and it's unfair to give him hints or ideas about what to post. Fortunately your analysis is slightly wrong anyway so it's okay even if he does mention those things :)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
UnbiasedSymmetryDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, to lazy to read, though it seemed con won
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
UnbiasedSymmetryDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Great case from Con on a philosophically novel issue. Con showed, from basic evolutionary theory, that species emerge from mutations, causing new species to emerge from different ones. Pro's point about ovocledidin-17 was not sufficient to explain the ultimate origins of the FIRST chicken.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
UnbiasedSymmetryDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proves that the egg came before the chicken as the first chicken must have come from an egg with chicken DNA. Con also shows that two non chickens can produce an egg whose DNA morphs into chicken DNA. Pro counters with that since the proteins in a chicken ovary are necessary to form an egg, the egg cannot have been made by non-chickens. This still leaves the question of where the original chicken came from. Con's case on the other hand was airtight. Conduct for forfeit.