chicken or egg- i argue the egg came first
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
... or not
domomsday forfeited this round.
domomsday forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Not much of a debate, unfortunately. Pro presented an actual case, and Con proceded to merely negate, then forfeit all subsequent rounds. As such, conduct for the forfeits, and arguments for the actual case. What very little Con presented wasn't atrocious in terms of S&G, so I suppose that's equal enough, and nobody sourced. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate