▲ 832 ▼ Just so there's no confusion (lemmy.ml) submitted 8 months ago by cm0002@toast.ooo to c/funny@sh.itjust.works 115 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago (10 children) OK but what did the first egg laying animal come out of. permalink fedilink source hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 11 points 8 months ago (8 children) Some non-egg laying animal gave birth to an egg laying animal due to a beneficial mutation. So the "chicken" (or rather, any egg laying animal) came first. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] ThunderComplex@lemmy.today 6 points 8 months ago (2 children) I’m laughing my ass off rn because I’m imagining this process happening today like imagine giving birth to your daughter the normal way and she gives birth by laying eggs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] beejboytyson@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 child) Not exactly, they produced eggs just not with the hard outer shell built for dry air filled environment. THATS where the next land dwelling being came from. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 point 8 months ago Yeah but in the same way we extend the discussion to be "egg laying creature" instead of chicken, we can extend it to "any sort of shelled baby" from egg and the logic still holds. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 1 point 8 months ago (4 children) I disagree, i think a chicken is the animal that comes from an egg and then lays an egg (to start the cycle anew). If the first animal you call a chicken isnt hatched from an egg then i think its not a chicken, but a predecessor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 point 8 months ago (3 children) That chicken's parent laid an egg though so it wasn't the first egg laying animal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 1 point 8 months ago (2 children) Correct, not the first egg laying animal, however the first chicken was hatched from a chicken egg. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 8 months ago (1 child) No, I don't think I'd agree. Something gave birth to something with a mutation that caused it to lay eggs that we'd call chicken eggs that produce chicken. Itself was born from a creature that didn't lay chicken eggs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 2 points 8 months ago Well now i think im inclined to agree with you. I have been defining it as a true chicken is the animal that came from the egg and reproduces the same animal in egg form. But if you were to say instead that the final mutation that created the gentically distinct animal we call a chicken, would still be that animal regardless of how it was created. Similar to if a chain of self replicating robots is traced back to the origonal unit, its still a self replicating robot even if the first was built by hands. permalink fedilink source parent [–] nexguy@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago eggish permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 11 points 8 months ago (8 children) Some non-egg laying animal gave birth to an egg laying animal due to a beneficial mutation. So the "chicken" (or rather, any egg laying animal) came first. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] ThunderComplex@lemmy.today 6 points 8 months ago (2 children) I’m laughing my ass off rn because I’m imagining this process happening today like imagine giving birth to your daughter the normal way and she gives birth by laying eggs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] beejboytyson@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 child) Not exactly, they produced eggs just not with the hard outer shell built for dry air filled environment. THATS where the next land dwelling being came from. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 point 8 months ago Yeah but in the same way we extend the discussion to be "egg laying creature" instead of chicken, we can extend it to "any sort of shelled baby" from egg and the logic still holds. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 1 point 8 months ago (4 children) I disagree, i think a chicken is the animal that comes from an egg and then lays an egg (to start the cycle anew). If the first animal you call a chicken isnt hatched from an egg then i think its not a chicken, but a predecessor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 point 8 months ago (3 children) That chicken's parent laid an egg though so it wasn't the first egg laying animal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 1 point 8 months ago (2 children) Correct, not the first egg laying animal, however the first chicken was hatched from a chicken egg. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 8 months ago (1 child) No, I don't think I'd agree. Something gave birth to something with a mutation that caused it to lay eggs that we'd call chicken eggs that produce chicken. Itself was born from a creature that didn't lay chicken eggs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 2 points 8 months ago Well now i think im inclined to agree with you. I have been defining it as a true chicken is the animal that came from the egg and reproduces the same animal in egg form. But if you were to say instead that the final mutation that created the gentically distinct animal we call a chicken, would still be that animal regardless of how it was created. Similar to if a chain of self replicating robots is traced back to the origonal unit, its still a self replicating robot even if the first was built by hands. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ThunderComplex@lemmy.today 6 points 8 months ago (2 children) I’m laughing my ass off rn because I’m imagining this process happening today like imagine giving birth to your daughter the normal way and she gives birth by laying eggs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] beejboytyson@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 child) Not exactly, they produced eggs just not with the hard outer shell built for dry air filled environment. THATS where the next land dwelling being came from. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 point 8 months ago Yeah but in the same way we extend the discussion to be "egg laying creature" instead of chicken, we can extend it to "any sort of shelled baby" from egg and the logic still holds. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] beejboytyson@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 child) Not exactly, they produced eggs just not with the hard outer shell built for dry air filled environment. THATS where the next land dwelling being came from. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 point 8 months ago Yeah but in the same way we extend the discussion to be "egg laying creature" instead of chicken, we can extend it to "any sort of shelled baby" from egg and the logic still holds. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 point 8 months ago Yeah but in the same way we extend the discussion to be "egg laying creature" instead of chicken, we can extend it to "any sort of shelled baby" from egg and the logic still holds. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 1 point 8 months ago (4 children) I disagree, i think a chicken is the animal that comes from an egg and then lays an egg (to start the cycle anew). If the first animal you call a chicken isnt hatched from an egg then i think its not a chicken, but a predecessor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 point 8 months ago (3 children) That chicken's parent laid an egg though so it wasn't the first egg laying animal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 1 point 8 months ago (2 children) Correct, not the first egg laying animal, however the first chicken was hatched from a chicken egg. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 8 months ago (1 child) No, I don't think I'd agree. Something gave birth to something with a mutation that caused it to lay eggs that we'd call chicken eggs that produce chicken. Itself was born from a creature that didn't lay chicken eggs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 2 points 8 months ago Well now i think im inclined to agree with you. I have been defining it as a true chicken is the animal that came from the egg and reproduces the same animal in egg form. But if you were to say instead that the final mutation that created the gentically distinct animal we call a chicken, would still be that animal regardless of how it was created. Similar to if a chain of self replicating robots is traced back to the origonal unit, its still a self replicating robot even if the first was built by hands. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 point 8 months ago (3 children) That chicken's parent laid an egg though so it wasn't the first egg laying animal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 1 point 8 months ago (2 children) Correct, not the first egg laying animal, however the first chicken was hatched from a chicken egg. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 8 months ago (1 child) No, I don't think I'd agree. Something gave birth to something with a mutation that caused it to lay eggs that we'd call chicken eggs that produce chicken. Itself was born from a creature that didn't lay chicken eggs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 2 points 8 months ago Well now i think im inclined to agree with you. I have been defining it as a true chicken is the animal that came from the egg and reproduces the same animal in egg form. But if you were to say instead that the final mutation that created the gentically distinct animal we call a chicken, would still be that animal regardless of how it was created. Similar to if a chain of self replicating robots is traced back to the origonal unit, its still a self replicating robot even if the first was built by hands. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 1 point 8 months ago (2 children) Correct, not the first egg laying animal, however the first chicken was hatched from a chicken egg. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 8 months ago (1 child) No, I don't think I'd agree. Something gave birth to something with a mutation that caused it to lay eggs that we'd call chicken eggs that produce chicken. Itself was born from a creature that didn't lay chicken eggs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 2 points 8 months ago Well now i think im inclined to agree with you. I have been defining it as a true chicken is the animal that came from the egg and reproduces the same animal in egg form. But if you were to say instead that the final mutation that created the gentically distinct animal we call a chicken, would still be that animal regardless of how it was created. Similar to if a chain of self replicating robots is traced back to the origonal unit, its still a self replicating robot even if the first was built by hands. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 8 months ago (1 child) No, I don't think I'd agree. Something gave birth to something with a mutation that caused it to lay eggs that we'd call chicken eggs that produce chicken. Itself was born from a creature that didn't lay chicken eggs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 2 points 8 months ago Well now i think im inclined to agree with you. I have been defining it as a true chicken is the animal that came from the egg and reproduces the same animal in egg form. But if you were to say instead that the final mutation that created the gentically distinct animal we call a chicken, would still be that animal regardless of how it was created. Similar to if a chain of self replicating robots is traced back to the origonal unit, its still a self replicating robot even if the first was built by hands. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 2 points 8 months ago Well now i think im inclined to agree with you. I have been defining it as a true chicken is the animal that came from the egg and reproduces the same animal in egg form. But if you were to say instead that the final mutation that created the gentically distinct animal we call a chicken, would still be that animal regardless of how it was created. Similar to if a chain of self replicating robots is traced back to the origonal unit, its still a self replicating robot even if the first was built by hands. permalink fedilink source parent