wasn't it obvious?
chicken and egg debate unscrambled
egg came first, 'eggsperts' agree
london, england — it's a question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: what came first, the chicken or the egg?
now a team made up of a geneticist, philosopher and chicken farmer claim to have found an answer. it was the egg.
put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal's life.
therefore the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg.
professor john brookfield, a specialist in evolutionary genetics at the university of nottingham, told the uk press association the pecking order was clear.
the living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same dna as the chicken it would develop into, he said.
"therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg," he added. "so, i would conclude that the egg came first."
the same conclusion was reached by his fellow "eggsperts" professor david papineau, of king's college london, and poultry farmer charles bourns.
mr papineau, an expert in the philosophy of science, agreed that the first chicken came from an egg and that proves there were chicken eggs before chickens.
he told pa people were mistaken if they argued that the mutant egg belonged to the "non-chicken" bird parents.
"i would argue it is a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it," he said.
"if a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg."
bourns, chairman of trade body great british chicken, said he was also firmly in the pro-egg camp.
he said: "eggs were around long before the first chicken arrived. of course, they may not have been chicken eggs as we see them today, but they were eggs."
the debate, which may come as a relief to those with argumentative relatives, was organized by disney to promote the release of the film "chicken little" on dvd.
i'm sure you already knew that, didn't ya, lil' blog?
egg came first, 'eggsperts' agree
london, england — it's a question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: what came first, the chicken or the egg?
now a team made up of a geneticist, philosopher and chicken farmer claim to have found an answer. it was the egg.
put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal's life.
therefore the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg.
professor john brookfield, a specialist in evolutionary genetics at the university of nottingham, told the uk press association the pecking order was clear.
the living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same dna as the chicken it would develop into, he said.
"therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg," he added. "so, i would conclude that the egg came first."
the same conclusion was reached by his fellow "eggsperts" professor david papineau, of king's college london, and poultry farmer charles bourns.
mr papineau, an expert in the philosophy of science, agreed that the first chicken came from an egg and that proves there were chicken eggs before chickens.
he told pa people were mistaken if they argued that the mutant egg belonged to the "non-chicken" bird parents.
"i would argue it is a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it," he said.
"if a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg."
bourns, chairman of trade body great british chicken, said he was also firmly in the pro-egg camp.
he said: "eggs were around long before the first chicken arrived. of course, they may not have been chicken eggs as we see them today, but they were eggs."
the debate, which may come as a relief to those with argumentative relatives, was organized by disney to promote the release of the film "chicken little" on dvd.
i'm sure you already knew that, didn't ya, lil' blog?
posted by eGGie at 7:52 PM
1 Comments:
So I visit your blog, you know, just to confirm that you have once again not updated it.
But lo! What's this?! A bunch of new entries?
Motherlode! 15 minutes of fun-filled reading coming right up! I was so excited about having new eGGie material that I even made a snack and brought it to my computer to eat as I read. You know, to make the experience more complete.
Alas! I should have known better. This was nothing more than news taken from other sources.
A looking-glass for today's journalism.
All major news organisations fired their reporters and writing staff years ago. Now they all buy the same recycled articles from Reuters and Associated Press.
Go to BBC's website and follow 1 particular story for 1 week. You'll see that it's the same text written over and over and over again, with only the 1st paragraph offering some news.
*sigh*
Seems like eGGie has been swept by the tide of modern news releases.
Post a Comment
<< Home