The Instigator
Crayzman2297
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
38 Points

The chicken came before the egg

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,595 times Debate No: 12245
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (37)
Votes (8)

 

Crayzman2297

Pro

I believe that, in all technicalities, that the chicken came before the egg.
It is impossible that the egg simply appeared from nowhere, so it must have been laid by the chicken.
Danielle

Con

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; it is the original cell that divides to eventually produce all of the cells that make up the entire organism. So, the organism that 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. 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.

[1] http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Crayzman2297

Pro

"all that existed were two non-chickens whose DNA morphed into the DNA that makes up chickens"

This cannot be proven. Non-chickens do not lay chicken eggs. In order for them to be non-chickens they must NOT be able to interbreed and produce a fertile chicken. [1]

The first chicken would most LIKELY be able to have offspring with its parents species, therefore making it ONE of its parents species.
making them chickens too.

The question is: At what point does a dinosaur stop being a dinosaur and start being a chicken?

Good question! (why thank you!)
The thing is, by your definition, a chicken is never a chicken, (or all its ancestors are chickens too, take your pick) because biologically they are still evolving. (as are we). There must be some genetic wiggle-room for when species are species and not something else. But, I think we failed to establish something earlier in this debate, and it is crucial. I'll even let you do it on your terms.

Define "Chicken" please.

[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Danielle

Con

Pro begins by stating it "cannot be proven" that two non-chickens created the chicken. This is false. Evolution is accepted by virtually every scientist not inhibited by the confines of religion. Pro's profile states that he is an atheist thus I am assuming he accepts evolution as a verifiable and proven theory. As such, evolution states explicitly how a new species comes into fruition: two animals of different breeds mate [1].

Since we know that the 'chicken' is an evolved bird from the Jurassic era (Archaeopteryx), we know that it was subject to the same evolution as every other bird from this species [2] and thus was conceived through the process I have described: two creatures (not chickens) mating and the DNA resulting in the DNA that would now be evident in all future chickens. Pro's statement that non-chickens do not lay chicken eggs is misguided. While it's true that non-chickens cannot lay chicken eggs, it is true that non-chickens laid the FIRST chicken egg and that's how chickens came into existence in the first place.

Pro asked at what point a dinosaur stopped being a dinosaur and started being a chicken. Well, paleontologists agree that the evidence proving birds evolved from small predatory dinosaurs in Mesozoic times is overwhelming [3]. Birds evolving from dinosaurs developed through the Cenozoic era and most of the bird relatives we know today had appeared by the Oligocene period (35+ million years ago). In fact, the dinosaur-to-bird lineage can better be divided according to non-avian dinosaurs and avian dinosaurs. The evidence for this is blatant. Pro absolutely cannot deny or refute this reality unless he seeks to disprove evolution entirely (which would be absurd considering he admits that he believes in evolution... apparently he just does not understand it).

Pro mistakenly asserts, "By your definition, a chicken is never a chicken or all its ancestors are chickens too." This is a straw man; I have never stated any such thing. Nowhere did I say a chicken is never a chicken. A chicken is quite obviously a chicken. Moreover I never said that all of a chicken's ancestors are chickens. In fact I said the exact opposite. A chicken's ancestors like our ancestors do not being to our species. A species is created by two members of different species interbreeding. As such, the DNA found in a chicken is specific to that of chickens based on the result of DNA from 2 non-chickens mating.

Finally Pro asks me to define chicken and then presents a dictionary definition. That's fine and I agree to that definition. However this debate has nothing to do with how a chicken is defined and instead focuses on which came first: the chicken or the egg. I have explained why a chicken egg HAD to come first. Pro has not explained in any way whatsoever how a chicken could have magically appeared without first coming from an egg. If Pro agrees that chickens are hatched from eggs, which is inherent to the concept of chicken [4] then he must accept the reality that a chicken's DNA is present in the very first zygote that a chicken develops from. Ergo, a chicken had to be a chicken while it was still inside of the egg. Pro -- How can a chicken have come into existence without being a chicken while it was still inside the egg? That fundamental question imperative to Pro's case has been left entirely unanswered.

Conclusion...

"Consistent with evolutionary change, the genetic mutations resulting in the present-day chicken seems to have occurred over millions of years. On occasion the mistakes, changes, or mutations that occur in the evolutionary process produce a creature that is not the same as the parents and others of its former species... Prior to the arrival of the chicken, a pre-chicken creature that was at least one generation away from our present-day chicken, laid an egg that contained an embryo with DNA consistent with the 'new' aviary creature known as chicken. Therefore, the egg that contained the newly evolved chicken preceded its hatching. In other words, prior to the arrival of the first zygotic mix of male and female pre-chicken DNA that combined or mutated to form today's chicken, there were only non-chickens. The DNA mutations occurred at the cellular level in the zygote developing inside the egg. Therefore, the egg clearly preceded the chicken" [3].

[1] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
[2] http://sci.waikato.ac.nz...
[3] http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org...
[4] http://www.afn.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Crayzman2297

Pro

After checking your profile, seeing you're in the 100th percentile, and seeing that you're 23 years old when i'm merely 15, I realized two things:

1.) I will not win this debate.
2.) You are Pastafarian, which made me laugh.

Consider this my official statement of forfeiture, and I hope that I do not debate you again. I'll have no chance.

~Tom
Danielle

Con

Thanks, Tom. I don't necessarily think you needed to forfeit -- You have gone a fairly good job so far and I would like to debate you again in the future :) Maybe we can debate about my religion and I can convert you ;)
Debate Round No. 3
Crayzman2297

Pro

I'm certain that I didn't NEED to forfeit, however I did not have many other options. Every source that I could find supported your side of the debate! Due to my lack of biological knowledge and lack of SOURCES of biological knowledge that would actually AIDE me in my argument, it seemed that forfeiting was my best option, rather than carrying on a debate that I could not win and simply making myself look like a fool.

As to your religion;
Are you really Pastafarian? Because I read about it a few months ago and it was on a list among other religions like "Jediism" and "Googlism".
If you certainly believe that a flying spaghetti monster created this universe, then be all means I would accept your challenge. I will resist conversion at all costs. :)

~Tom
Danielle

Con

Yeah, Pro, if one accepts evolution (as all legitimate scientists do lol) then they have to accept the reality that the egg must've come before the chicken just based on genetic factors and the process of evolution alone in addition to what we know about DNA and cells. You did a good job though :) Regarding my faith, well... I'm inconsistent. Maybe one day I will be a Jedi depending on which God or belief I happen to like better at that particular point in time! Googlism sounds cool on the basis that I love Google but who knows :P
Debate Round No. 4
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Ok.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Oh. my. god.

GET A HOBBY. LEAVE ME ALONE. I really have no idea why you're so obsessed with me.

It's very convenient for you to paste that quote considering I can't paste mine. What I clarified to you when I denied your debate challenge was that relying on semantics is something you tend to do in the majority of debates you do with ME. I can't speak for ALL of your debates. You say I haven't defended this but I gave 3 examples of you pathetically manipulating the intent of the resolution by relying on specific definitions, i.e. the choosing sexuality debate, this egg debate, the omnipotence debate, etc.

Did you miss the gigantic paragraphs down there? Holy crap. I just explained it to you. I stand by it and if you don't want to take my sentiment seriously then DON'T lololol I. DON'T. CARE. Report me for slander if you insist I slandered you by saying I don't think you're a good debater. Report me for slander for noting that you rely on semantics to win most of your debates with me. It's true regardless of whether or not I care enough to debate it with you atm (which I DON'T).
Posted by mongoose 6 years ago
mongoose
"Wikipedia - "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org...;

But that's only according to Wikipedia, so you can't trust it.

Wait...
Posted by Xer 6 years ago
Xer
Wikipedia - "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by mongoose 6 years ago
mongoose
Lwerd, just say that while the initial statement was an exageration, you stand by the fact that mongeese relies on semantics to win many of his debates. No more issue.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
The statement: "I stand by the fact that you rely on semantics in a large majority of your debate..."

You've never defended it. I've actually attacked it.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
If you're saying that the only definition that's relevant for egg is the first egg PRODUCED by a chicken, then that eliminates the entire debate because obviously a chicken would have to exist in order to produce a chicken egg. On the contrary, that's not what this debate is about (I've explained what it was about) and just because WIKIPEDIA says something doesn't make it valid.

Yes, one can use semantics to be creative -- I've done it -- but you RELY on it, and turn debates that are specifically supposed to address one perspective and manipulate it (such as this one, and in the other examples I gave you).

Also, I never said that debating the egg thing is boring. If I thought it was boring I wouldn't have accepted this debate now would I? I said that I find YOU boring. Your methods of debate are monotonous (semantics) and your arguments are weak. Regarding my stance, I've already explained that I stand by it - I've defended it (explained it here) - so how is it slander? Go ahead and report me for slander because I said that I didn't think you were a good debater.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
"Stephen Hawking and Christopher Langan argue that the egg came before the chicken, though the real importance of the question has faded since Darwin's On the Origin of Species and the accompanying Theory of Evolution, under which the egg must have come first, assuming the question intended the egg to mean an egg in general or an egg that hatches into a chicken."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Wikipedia specifically clarified what "egg" was supposed to mean. There's really only one definition of "egg" that is even applicable beyond those two definitions: an egg produced by a chicken.

Although, to say that semantics are childish is merely being close-minded. Semantics is merely another excercise of creativity, as Kleptin used to say.

As for defining omnipotence, well, that is a legitimate debate within itself. Why must the very mentioning of semantics have such a bad connotation among DDOians?

Although, I find it funny that you think debating this is boring, and yet here you are, debating it in the comments section.

Finally, if you're not going to stand by a statement that you claim to stand by, then don't say it. It just leads to slander.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Those are 2 random examples, but we can see this in some of his other debates as well -- i.e. having the whole debate hinge on how you define omnipotent, for example.

The point is that I'm not going to debate how good of a debater mongeese is or isn't. Nobody would ever respect that childishness which apparently you're too immature to understand. I stand by my statement that mongeese is NOT a good debater (otherwise he wouldn't have to rely on such tactics), but I concede that it is an unwinnable debate because of (a) how people will negatively perceive it, (b) saying "most" debates was an obvious exaggeration.

Aside from that I'm actually incredibly bored by mongeese in general so why would I take the time to debate something so frivolous? I stand by my statement and whether you accept it or not has no bearing on me.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by bozotheclown 5 years ago
bozotheclown
Crayzman2297DanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: It definitely did...
Vote Placed by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
Crayzman2297DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Funkymonkey 5 years ago
Funkymonkey
Crayzman2297DanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Vote Placed by TheDizziestLemon 5 years ago
TheDizziestLemon
Crayzman2297DanielleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by belle 6 years ago
belle
Crayzman2297DanielleTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Crayzman2297DanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 6 years ago
Vi_Veri
Crayzman2297DanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Crayzman2297DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05