-black science man. . Neil degrasse Tyson (ti) son Just to settle! it C) ) and for all: / N/ hich Carrie! first the) C) hick: en or the Egg'? The! Egg -- laid t -black science man Neil degrasse Tyson (ti) son Just to settle! it C) ) and for all: / N/ hich Carrie! first the) hick: en or the Egg'? The! Egg -- laid t
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (152)
[ 152 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #11 - teeg
Reply -122 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
Realistically it had to have been a chicken. If it wasn't a chicken that laid the egg, then it was not a chicken egg, hence a chicken could not hatch from it.
User avatar #16 to #11 - heartlessrobot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
No, it was the ancestors of the chicken that laid eggs, and whatever hatched laid eggs, and so on and so on until what we call a chicken was hatched.
User avatar #20 to #11 - mutzaki
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
It's what's on the inside that counts. Except for when it comes to dating.
#103 to #11 - anon id: 5aab12b4
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
The problem is that evolution is continuous so there really is no static "chicken" state, there wasn't a jump like "boom, now its a chicken". But yeah, if there were, it would be the egg, since mutations occur from a generation to the following one, hence the chicken state would have been first reached by the very first egg, which was laid by a slightly different bird.
#105 to #11 - eddymatagallos
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
As soon as you consider the evolution as a continuous process, the answer is always going to be the species and not the eggs, and it will be the way around if you consider evolutionary steps as stationary states.
#94 to #11 - hockeycrazysteve
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
an egg being gentically different from the mother is more likely than a "none" chicken evolving into a chicken in its sort lifespan. Like for science
User avatar #95 to #94 - hockeycrazysteve
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
Short*
User avatar #15 to #11 - hellsoldier
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
an ancestor of the chicken laid the egg, from with the chicken we know today hatched. hence it was a chicken egg, because thats what came out of it.
User avatar #34 to #15 - citruslord
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
I think he's trying to classify the egg type by what laid it.
User avatar #73 to #34 - pootismang
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
So now the question is boiled down to a matter of semantics.
User avatar #74 to #73 - citruslord
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
It could be taken that way, yes. But scientifically there is going to be a single, specific way to classify what type of egg it is, and it looks like they go with whatever is in it.
User avatar #61 to #11 - sinonyx
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
technically yes, it was not a "chicken egg"

but its "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" not "which came first the chicken or the chicken egg?"
User avatar #23 to #11 - iwebby
Reply +182 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
evolution, baby.
User avatar #137 to #23 - messerauditore
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
B-but muh bible!
#142 to #23 - anon id: 3b5ff0a6
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
Evolution occurs over a period of time you dumbass. You don't seem smart. You're just another ******* retarded keyboard warrior.
User avatar #145 to #142 - klaes
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
Actually, you're the ********. There has to have been a point where whatever the previous bird was stopped being that bird and became close enough to the modern day chicken to be called one. Just because it happens over a long period of time doesn't mean that there's not a single point in time where you can say a new species has come into existence.
#128 to #23 - vaporwing
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
Couldn't help myself.
Couldn't help myself.
#131 to #128 - vaporwing
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#130 to #128 - vaporwing
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#129 to #128 - vaporwing
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #87 to #23 - komandantmirkoo
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
well the thing is he is right and wrong. is the egg truly a chicken egg if it was laid by a proto-chicken? the further you go into this the sillier it gets
User avatar #134 to #87 - regius
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
I'll explain it step by step so it's simple.
1. you have an ancient form of bird/dinosaur
2. this creature through selective breeding (via natural selection) eventually reaches a general physiology much like today's chickens but not quite.
3. Due to 2 of these pseudo chicken-like birds having similar recessive gene's and these both being dominate in the baby a chicken is born.
4. the chicken then mates with other pseudo chicken-like birds who have the recessive gene and end up creating the chicken species.
5. Pseudo chicken-like birds become extinct due to either one or more:
a)Chickens recessive gene takes over as dominate gene in the population
b)Pseudo chickens were heavily relied on food source for certain predators and became over hunted.
c)Chickens could cope with food source Pseudo's could not causing Pseudo's to starve out
d)Climate change caused Pseudo's to much trouble due to several possibilities all of which end up with extinction.
#153 to #134 - komandantmirkoo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
no need for an explanation. i understand and i didn't say i disagree. i was just saying that the chicken came from a not-chicken, and it all comes down to how people look at an egg. do you call it a chicken egg because it contains a chicken, or because it's parent was a chicken. and honestly i don't know why people argue over this since it was meant as a philosophy question not a biological one.
no need for an explanation. i understand and i didn't say i disagree. i was just saying that the chicken came from a not-chicken, and it all comes down to how people look at an egg. do you call it a chicken egg because it contains a chicken, or because it's parent was a chicken. and honestly i don't know why people argue over this since it was meant as a philosophy question not a biological one.
User avatar #1 - meanberry
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
Or you know laid by a dinosaur.
User avatar #2 to #1 - hellomynameisbill
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
that's the point
#4 to #2 - meanberry
Reply -10 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
Dinosaurs are not birds.
#5 to #4 - hellomynameisbill
Reply +43 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
I'm pretty sure that most of the surviving dinosaurs evolved into modern birds.

there's a reason that mammals don't have the same aesthetic traits as dinosaurs
User avatar #70 to #5 - wimwam
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
That's actually kind of a sad graphic. Such cool looking animals and all we get is this feather ball with red balls hanging off its face
User avatar #146 to #5 - theexplodingcheez
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
the fifth one looks like a badass pokemon
#6 to #5 - hellomynameisbill
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
and what I mean by aesthetic traits
User avatar #7 to #6 - hellomynameisbill
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
also, most avian dinosaurs could be potentially classified as birds
User avatar #8 to #7 - hellomynameisbill
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
pterodactyls and shet
User avatar #109 to #8 - ecomp
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
Pterodons are not birds, nor where they dinosaurs, in the same way that Crocodiles lived in the same time as dinosaurs, but were not dinosaurs.
#9 to #8 - meanberry
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
Still doesn't counts as birds
#10 to #9 - hellomynameisbill
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
bird n. 1 two legged feathered winged vertebrate, egg laying and usu. able to fly.
-oxford english dictionary fifth edition
#80 to #10 - anon id: 7c1b5839
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
You're an idiot if you think Pterosaurs are related to birds in any way.

First of all birds are closer related to dromaosauridae than Pterosaurs. They share nothing in common other than the ability to fly.

Along with that Pterosaurs have a completely different build, no talons, longer more rigid wings and their bones are resistant to bending, unlike impact in the case of birds.
User avatar #14 to #10 - meanberry
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
I a way where both right.
Wikipedia on Pterodactylus
"the animal was described as being both a mammal, a bat, and a form in between mammals and birds, i.e. not intermediate in descent but in "affinity" or archetype."

Since wikipedia isn't the most accurate I also bring the original source:
Wagler, J. (1830). Natürliches System der Amphibien Munich, 1830: 1–354.

But I mainly tried to be pundit more than anything.
User avatar #28 to #14 - kennyh
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
"in a way we are both right"

a phrase used by wrong people since forever.
User avatar #32 to #28 - meanberry
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
Ok i give up. I'm wrong and I admit it.
User avatar #26 to #14 - greyhoundfd
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
You're using a book from almost 200 years ago to prove that dinosaurs aren't birds, when there's proof now that they qualify?
#82 to #26 - anon id: 7c1b5839
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
Pterosaurs aren't dinosaurs or birds
User avatar #12 to #9 - sturyl
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
still laying eggs
User avatar #13 to #12 - meanberry
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
Yeah, that was my point.
User avatar #19 to #4 - moribus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
Or birds are not birds, they are dinosours.
User avatar #21 to #4 - mutzaki
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
All birds are dinosaurs but not all dinosaurs were birds.
User avatar #44 to #1 - WolfPrince
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
And laid by amphibians before them and fish before that.
User avatar #29 - bushingenna
Reply +22 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
Who hasn't thought of that answer on their own by now?


Unpopular Opinion: Black Science man annoys the **** out of me. Maybe he is smart but people have orgasms over some pretty simple ****. Like the time he mentioned the big bang theory on colbert report
#92 to #29 - bulbakip
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
He's the big bang theory of real life

Carl Sagan is the real Science Man
User avatar #59 to #29 - gthelurker
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
You have to realize a staggering number of people are ******* retards.. or their mind works only on the most basic level..
User avatar #106 to #59 - bushingenna
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
its just a bandwagon to like this guy and go with whatever he says
#88 - pkmlpkm
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
You're all wrong, the rooster came first.
#38 - anon id: b5729944
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
Been sayin that **** for years
User avatar #135 to #38 - spydermonkee
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
same. no one ever listens :/
#45 to #38 - kulamia
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
But you're not Black Science man.
In all fairness I assume many people, you, me, tens of thousands in every country with real science taught in their schools, realize that how evolution works.
User avatar #25 - itumblr
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
Chickens came first, because who would have laid the egg?
#41 to #25 - anon id: 990df6cb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
This is bait. This is a negative thumb douche trying to reach level -400. Upvote him to level 0.
User avatar #43 to #41 - itumblr
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
hhaa, good one
#30 to #25 - iscrewbabies
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
Logic isn't your friend, is it?
User avatar #31 - TigerMann
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
Which came first? The egg or the creature that laid it?
Your move, Black Science Man.
User avatar #36 to #31 - ninjaroo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
The egg. The first creature to lay what we'd call an egg was born from something roundish with a shellish outside, but not an actual egg.
User avatar #54 to #36 - gcloud
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
no matter which way u peel it if the creature is incubated outside of the body its gonna be in an egg
so basically "roundish with a shellish outside" ur talking about is still an egg
User avatar #57 to #54 - ninjaroo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
We're talking about chicken eggs here, not eggs in general. Otherwise I could refer to human eggs. Anyway, there could quite easily be precursors to the chicken egg as we know it. Maybe it was soft, or maybe the shell was developed inside the body and something got the bright idea to drop it and sit on it instead of carrying it around all day.
User avatar #58 to #57 - gcloud
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
ya im fking retarded but still eggs
and you coulda also said bacteria and such since they dont use eggs at all
User avatar #46 to #36 - enfantcool
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
Judging from your explanation, the creature came first
User avatar #47 to #46 - ninjaroo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
The egg came before the first creature to lay eggs, is what I meant. Obviously creatures in general came first.
User avatar #49 to #47 - enfantcool
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
But where did the egg come from?
User avatar #53 to #49 - ninjaroo
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
...Nevermind, I realize my mistake here. Derp.
User avatar #56 to #53 - enfantcool
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
whish i had a proper reaction pic
User avatar #52 to #49 - ninjaroo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
A mutant creature that didn't come from an egg, but laid one.
User avatar #62 to #31 - sinonyx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
the creature that isn't a chicken
User avatar #89 - littleliz
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/22/2014) [-]
once i understood evolution i always said the egg. i was called stupid for years.
User avatar #35 - thearchangell
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
Which Came First - The Chicken or the Egg?

this video explains everything
#22 - skybluetroll
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
I find Neil deGrasse Tyson to be snarky and annoying.
#24 to #22 - montykarl
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/21/2014) [-]
Thumbs up because I agree. He's less qualified than the vast majority of astrophysicists, but people latch onto him because he's a smart aleck and black.