The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
KRFournier
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

chicken or the egg- i say the egg came first

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 422 times Debate No: 78203
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

one needs to define chicken. a chicken is one which can mate and have kids with at least one chicken in existence. if you were to go back in time, there would be the first chicken capable of doing this. that chicken came in the form of an egg.

that chicken came from a chicken hybrid. all other attempts to answer this question wrongly define chicken. once chicken is properly defined, one has to conclude that the egg came first
KRFournier

Con

One does indeed need to define a chicken, and given our present cultural context, the phrase “chicken or the egg” refers to what we commonly understand to be the domesticated chicken: Gallus domesticus.

Gallus domesticus descends from the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus), possibly by interbreeding with the grey junglefowl (Gallus sonneratii), as much as 8,000 years ago. Gallus domesticus no longer shares all the genetic traits of its ancestors, making it a distinct category of chicken. Modern backyard chickens are less aggressive and have a different body composition than their wild counterparts. (http://archaeology.about.com...)

The history of the chicken answers the question plainly. First, we had Gallus gallus and Gallus sonneratii eggs, then humans worked with the offspring of said eggs to produce biological changes ideal for domestication. Only when man was satisfied with the domestication was the product reclassified to Gallus domesticus.

The organism was first declared chicken by man, after which came the eggs of said chicken.

Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

even if we take your approach and not how the chickes breed with modern chickens, that first dubbed "chicken" came first as an egg.
KRFournier

Con

Taxonomic classifications do not work that way. There is wide genetic diversity within Gallus domesticus, yet they all fall under the same category. It is reasonable that as selective breeding was performed on Gallus gallus, genetic diversity was not sufficient to warrant a new classification. Indeed, the only way to determine success was to evaluate the fowl after it was born.

It’s impossible to track down the first egg of Gallus domesticus without first isolating the first adult Gallus domesticus.

Thus, the chicken had to be first.

Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

" Indeed, the only way to determine success was to evaluate the fowl after it was born."

this may not be completely true, given genetic testing may be superior to just categorizing the species by physical attributes.

but even relying on pysical attributes, even if you had to wait till it was hatched, the egg still gave way to that hatched chicken. so, th egg came first.
KRFournier

Con

My opponent’s mistake is thinking that the question of “which came first” is a question of biology, when in fact it is a question of category. The word “chicken” is categorical, bringing to mind what we now biologically classify as Gallus domesticus. Using my opponent’s own claim that chickens come from a less-than-chicken ancestor, I showed that categorically, the wild fowl becomes a chicken only when observers have chosen to reclassify it.

My opponent responds that once the chicken is categorized, we can then categorize the egg from whence it came. This, however, is a mistake in chronology. The egg can only be categorized as a chicken egg after the wild fowl has been categorized as chicken. Thus, the “chicken” egg came after the “chicken.”

Thank you for your time and consideration for this fun little debate over an age old question.

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by KRFournier 1 year ago
KRFournier
I can see how my wording added confusing. I didn't mean to say that we categorize the old sub-species, what I meant was that, at some point, we eventually decide that the ole sub-species is different enough to now officially be something else. Once we have decided that this bird is now a chicken, only then will we say that the egg from which is was born was a chicken egg. So, either way, the classification of the animal happens before the classification of the egg.
Posted by EdwardTrail 1 year ago
EdwardTrail
I liked Cons arguments as I felt they were more developed.

"My opponent responds that once the chicken is categorized, we can then categorize the egg from whence it came. This, however, is a mistake in chronology. The egg can only be categorized as a chicken egg after the wild fowl has been categorized as chicken. Thus, the "chicken" egg came after the "chicken.""

My question is, why categorize the wild fowl as a chicken, as is it not a chicken. Can we not name the offspring of a donkey and a horse (mule). We don't have to categorize the donkey and the horse as mules before the said creation is considered to be a young mule.
Posted by A341 1 year ago
A341
Yeah it's the egg but not because of this.
Posted by triangle.128k 1 year ago
triangle.128k
I would do a debate on this topic, but I believe the egg came first so I don't know how to debate the chicken's side.
Posted by Alpha3141 1 year ago
Alpha3141
It depends on what you accept as being the origins of all living things
No votes have been placed for this debate.