The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Muad-Dib
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

chicken or egg came first- 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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 444 times Debate No: 58205
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

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.
Muad-Dib

Con

This is my first debate on the site, seemed like a good one to get started on! Looking forward to your response!

Now, let's begin...

PRO makes an excellent case for what constitutes a chicken, and I do not dispute it. However, I believe that the fundamental question is not what constitutes a chicken, but rather, what constitutes a chicken egg?

In the comments, a poster asked the quested "Are we talking about chicken eggs or eggs?" PRO responded by saying "it could be applicable to many species, but i chose the classical chicken and chicken egg scenario". Therefore, when deciding whether the chicken precedes the chicken egg, it seems that the key issue at question is: "what is a chicken egg?"

There are three possible requirements that could potentially have to be met in order for something to constitute a chicken egg:

1. an egg which contains a collection of cells that currently is or has the potential to become a chick
2. an egg which at some point in the past contained a collection of cells that had the potential to become a chick
3. an egg produced by a chicken
4. all of the above

I argue that only necessary requirement needed to constitute "a chicken egg" is number 3, an egg produced by a chicken.

Common sense, reason and logic dictates that a "chicken egg" is an egg that has been produced by a chicken. The first egg to harbour a chick was just that; an egg with a chick inside. It is said that the likely ancestor of the chicken was the Junglefowl.[1] If this is the case, the egg that contained the first chick was a Junglefowl egg with a genetic mutant inside of it. The first chicken egg came when that genetic mutant laid an egg.

In the words of PRO, we are speaking about a "chicken and chicken egg scenario". Because a chicken egg is an egg that has been produced by a chicken, the chicken must have preceded the egg.

In conclusion, chicken came first ^_^

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i would argue that the first of con's choices should be picked. a chicken egg is that which has a chicken developing inside it.

what about con's main point though, that if it is a chicken in the egg, it should be a chicken that laid it? con basically argued what i had expected con to argue in the initial post of the deabte.... that they are so related that they are the same species. con just used the chicken egg point as the spring board to the point.

to that, as i said before, sure, one could say they are the same, to some extent. but, when we do the mate regression train wreck scenario, we are forced to draw a line eventually when mating starts to occur. this is a definite line to indicate speciation.

so, we'd have junglefowl on one end. chickens on the other end. and a transitional species in between. again, there is simply just an over lap. but just because there is an overlap, doesn't means we should call the egg's parent a chicken too. it was significant that the parent coudl breed with the ancesters, but the egg when hatched couldn't. again, a line has to be drawn.
perhaps they are the same species when looking at the local group, but they are not the same species when looking at the bigger picture of speciation.
bottomline: the line must be drawn.
Muad-Dib

Con

PRO states: "I would argue that the first of con's choices should be picked":

1. an egg which contains a collection of cells that currently is or has the potential to become a chick

I would argue that this is an incomplete definition of a chicken egg. For example, say Chicken X lays an infertile egg (we"ll call this Egg X) that could never grow to become a chick ("An infertile egg contains only the hen's genetic material, which means a chick can never hatch from that egg") [1]

The egg then gets shown to reasonable, rational human being. The human is informed that Egg X is infertile, that it does not and never will have the potential to become a chicken. The human is also informed that Egg X was laid by a chicken. The man is then asked whether or not he believes Egg X to be a chicken egg. The man says he believes the egg to be a chicken egg. Because his response is not illogical or irrational, this suggests that the only requirement needed to constitute a chicken egg is the fact that the egg in question came from a chicken.

PRO misunderstands my argument when he claims my main point to be "that if it is a chicken in the egg, it should be a chicken that laid it". That is not my claim. My claim is that if an egg is to be designated the title of "chicken egg", the only necessary requirement that must be met is that the egg in question must have been produced by a chicken.

PRO argues that a line must be drawn, and I agree. While although there would have been some overlap between the domesticated chicken and his Junglefowl ancestors, the first creature that could have been objectively recognised as a chicken would have been the only creature capable at that time of producing a chicken egg.

Once again, I reiterate my argument that the only fundamental aspect of what constitutes a chicken egg is the fact that egg in question was produced by a chicken. Since only a chicken can produce a chicken egg, the chicken must have come first.

[1]http://www.the-chicken-chick.com...
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

well, i guess i dont agree that with the first point you listed, for the technicality arguemnts you gave. my only point is that the egg should be considered chicken egg if it is fertialized.

con agaain stresses that to common understandings, the egg is a chicken egg, not because it can grow into a chicken, but because it came from a chicken. he uses an analogy to stress the point.

"my argument when he claims my main point to be "that if it is a chicken in the egg, it should be a chicken that laid it". That is not my claim. My claim is that if an egg is to be designated the title of "chicken egg", the only necessary requirement that must be met is that the egg in question must have been produced by a chicken."

i'm not sure how con is trying to distinguish these points. it sounds like he is repeating himself. he disagrees with my characteriztion that it must be a chicken that laid it if it is a chicken egg, but insists what he means is for it to be an egg it must have been produced by a chicken. to use our terminologies. how is this different?

but as to con's last post. that if we can call it a chicken egg, and it is a chicken in the egg, it must have came from a chicken. again this is basically what he's been arguing all along, he's just dressing up the argument with points about eggs coming from chickens etc.

he must be focusing on looking at the species at the local level. my only problem is that we should be looking at the species in the bigger picture. to clarify, my train wreck regression scenario was overly complicated and a bit not accurate. the best way to characterize this stuff would be to say.... for the acnesters of every chicken in existence now, there will be ancesters that cannot mate with any chicken in existence now. then, there will be one first ancester who would have the ability to mate with a chicken in existence now. this chicken came first as an egg. it is not insignficant that the parents of that egg could not mate with any chicken in existence now. to constitue a chicken proper, it must be able to mate with a chicken in existence now.... by definition. bottoline, we have to have a cut off.
perhaps we can call that first mateable ancester's parents as chicken hybrids or something. but they cannot be considered chickens proper because they cannot mate with a chicken in existence now.
Muad-Dib

Con

"i'm not sure how con is trying to distinguish these points"

Con on my position: "if it is a chicken in the egg, it should be a chicken that laid it"
my position: for an egg to be a chicken egg, it must have been laid by a chicken

The difference between these two points is subtle, but important. For example, if two Junglefowl were to mate, and the creature inside resultant egg shared the DNA of a chicken, we would have a chicken inside an egg that was not laid by a chicken. This is my point. Junglefowl + Junglefowl = Junglefowl egg, regardsless of the creature inside the egg.

"but as to con's last post. that if we can call it a chicken egg, and it is a chicken in the egg, it must have came from a chicken"

Again, this is not my position. As i pointed out in R2, the only neccersery requirment needed for an object to be classified as a chicken egg is that it was laid by a chicken. It does not necessarily have to have a chicken inside (infertile eggs etc).

So, in conclusion, an egg laid by a chicken is a chicken egg. Since only a chicken can lay a chicken egg, the chicken must have come first.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
Pro, this became a debate on definitions.
The winner is going to be decided based on the definition of "chicken egg".
Posted by lifemeansevolutionisgood 2 years ago
lifemeansevolutionisgood
I would have taken this one then if I had the time
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
it could be applicable to many species, but i chose the classical chicken and chicken egg scenario
Posted by lifemeansevolutionisgood 2 years ago
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Are we talking about chicken eggs or eggs?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
dairygirl4u2cMuad-DibTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: The chicken.