Unofficial Poll- What comes first, the chicken, or the egg?

What comes first, the chicken or the egg?

  • The chicken!

    Votes: 21 38.9%

  • The egg!

    Votes: 16 29.6%

  • Other explanation

    Votes: 6 11.1%

  • I have no idea!

    Votes: 2 3.7%

  • The rooster?

    Votes: 9 16.7%
  • Total voters
    54
Pics
Date sort Score sort
Crestcrazy2 said:
Your saying that a reptile layed an egg and it hatched into a bird ?

Also the olive egger is still a chicken, breeds and a species are different things .
Click to expand...

This is a DEEPLY oversimplified and inaccurate description... But perhaps if I was trying to explain evolution to a toddler I might say that? In reality the change is gradual over hundreds or even thousands of years.

Breeds and species are just a list of defined traits. Can you define a species to me? Biologists can't.

A species can't be defined by phenotype, since many animals with VERY different phenotypes (Chihuahuas and wolves for example) are the same species.
It can't be defined by chomosome count since many animals with different chomosome counts can have viable offspring like servals crossed with domestic shorthairs.
It can't be defined be reproductive populations since reproductively distinct populations may exist in other areas and still be able to breed back. And it doesn't even touch on the subject of animals like sharks and reptiles that can reproduce without any other animals.
It can't be defined by ecological niche. Flying squirrels and sugar gliders are totally different despite having nearly identical roles and appearance...

Wikipedia says;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
"While the definitions given above may seem adequate, when looked at more closely they represent problematic species concepts. For example, the boundaries between closely related species become unclear with hybridisation, in a species complex of hundreds of similar microspecies, and in a ring species. Also, among organisms that reproduce only asexually, the concept of a reproductive species breaks down, and each clone is potentially a microspecies. Though none of these are entirely satisfactory definitions, scientists and conservationists need a species definition which allows them to work, regardless of the theoretical difficulties. If species were fixed and clearly distinct from one another, there would be no problem, but evolutionary processes cause species to change continually, and to grade into one another. "

There's no real difference between "breed" and "species" except how tightly we're defining an animals traits. When it comes to the questions like this the answer is identical just on a different scale. Is it a Cream Legbar if I cross it to a barred rock, then back to CL again three times? Or is it mixed? It's all semantics.
 
ChocolateMouse said:
Wikipedia says;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
"While the definitions given above may seem adequate, when looked at more closely they represent problematic species concepts. For example, the boundaries between closely related species become unclear with hybridisation, in a species complex of hundreds of similar microspecies, and in a ring species. Also, among organisms that reproduce only asexually, the concept of a reproductive species breaks down, and each clone is potentially a microspecies. Though none of these are entirely satisfactory definitions, scientists and conservationists need a species definition which allows them to work, regardless of the theoretical difficulties. If species were fixed and clearly distinct from one another, there would be no problem, but evolutionary processes cause species to change continually, and to grade into one another. "
Click to expand...
Defiantly don't want to pick a fight, but Wikipedia is not a good source because anyone can go online, and edit the article with there own incorrect, or inaccurate info. As far as we know, you could have just edited the Wikipedia article, and put this in.- Definitely and not trying to pick a fight with anyone, but another source may be better. 🙂
 
LPCEetU6Ux3XzDkqAaq2KU-1200-80.jpg
 
Weeg said:
Defiantly don't want to pick a fight, but Wikipedia is not a good source because anyone can go online, and edit the article with there own incorrect, or inaccurate info. As far as we know, you could have just edited the Wikipedia article, and put this in.- Definitely and not trying to pick a fight with anyone, but another source may be better. 🙂
Click to expand...

Have... You ever tried to edit a wikipedia article?

I have. Even on minor articles things get fact checked CONSTANTLY. It's got a HUGE academic community behind it and every article has a ton of academic sources. Fictitious edits are, at best, temporary. If an article receives too many falsifiable edits in a short time frame it gets locked and only certified people can edit it.
Because it's got a consistently attentive community, it's often more reliable than physical encyclopedias which never change and are considered generally acceptable academic sources.

Just go down to the bottom of the page and check the sources yourself, then. Here's a list of them. XD
  1. Wilkins, John S. (1 October 2006). "A List of 26 Species Concepts". Science Blogs.
  2. ^ Mayr, Ernst (1982). "Chapter 6: Microtaxonomy, the science of species". The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674364462.
  3. ^ Robson, G. C. (1928). The Species Problem: an Introduction to the Study of Evolutionary Divergence in Natural Populations. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
  4. ^ Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. London: Murray. p. 48. ISBN 978-84-206-5607-6.
  5. ^ Wilkins, John S. (2006). "Species, Kinds, and Evolution". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2009-09-24.
  6. ^ Wilkins, John S. (May 10, 2009). "The first biological species concept : Evolving Thoughts". Archived from the original on May 15, 2009. Retrieved 2009-09-24.
  7. ^ Britton, N.L. (April 1908). "The taxonomic aspect of the species question". The American Naturalist. 42 (496): 225–242. doi:10.1086/278927.
  8. ^ Jump up to:a b Mayr, E. (1982). The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-36445-5.
  9. ^ Haveman, R. (2013). "Freakish patterns – species and species concepts in apomicts". Nordic Journal of Botany. 31 (3): 257–269. doi:10.1111/j.1756-1051.2013.00158.x.
  10. ^ Johnson, D.S. (April 1908). "Aspects of the Species Question". The American Naturalist. 42 (496): 217. doi:10.1086/278925.
  11. ^ Bailey, L.H. (December 1896). "The philosophy of species-making". Botanical Gazette. 22 (6): 454–462. doi:10.1086/327442.
  12. ^ Mallet, James (December 2003). "Perspectives Poulton, Wallace and Jordan: how discoveries in Papilio butterflies led to a new species concept 100 years ago". Systematics and Biodiversity. 1 (4): 441–452. doi:10.1017/S1477200003001300. S2CID 86041887.
  13. ^ Jump up to:a b c Dobzhansky, T. (1937). Genetics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 310. ISBN 978-0-231-05475-1.
  14. ^ Mayr, Ernst (1942). Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-86250-0.
  15. ^ Mallet, James (November 2001). "The speciation revolution"(PDF). Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 14 (6): 887–888. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2001.00342.x.
  16. ^ Coyne, Jerry (1994). "Ernst Mayr and the origin of species". Evolution. 48 (1): 19–30. doi:10.2307/2409999. JSTOR 2409999. PMID 28567778.
  17. ^ Jump up to:a b c Pigliucci, Massimo (June 2003). "Species as family resemblance concepts: The (dis-)solution of the species problem?". BioEssays. 25 (6): 596–602. doi:10.1002/bies.10284. PMID 12766949.
  18. ^ Jump up to:a b Ghiselin, Michael (December 1974). "A radical solution to the species problem". Systematic Zoology. 23 (4): 536–544. doi:10.2307/2412471. JSTOR 2412471.
  19. ^ de Queiroz, K. (December 2005). "Different species problems and their resolution". BioEssays. 27 (12): 1263–1269. doi:10.1002/bies.20325. PMID 16299765.
  20. ^ Hey, J. (1997). "A reduction of "species" and a resolution of the species problem". Rutgers University, Department of Genetics. Retrieved 2007-12-25.
  21. ^ Ridley, Mark (January 1989). "The cladistic solution to the species problem". Biology and Philosophy. 4 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1007/BF00144036. S2CID 84433745.
  22. ^ Stamos, D.N. (2003). The species problem: Biological species, ontology, and the metaphysics of biology. Lanham: Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-0503-0.
  23. ^ Vrana, P.; Wheeler, W. (1992). "Individual organisms as terminal entities: Laying the species problem to rest". Cladistics. 8 (1): 67–72. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1992.tb00051.x. S2CID 85226463.
  24. ^ Jump up to:a b c Hey, J. (2001). Genes categories and species. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-514477-2.
  25. ^ Endler, J.A. (1989). "Conceptual and other problems in speciation". In Otte, D.; Endler, J.A. (eds.). Speciation and its consequences. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates. pp. 625–648. ISBN 978-0-87893-658-8.
  26. ^ de Queiroz, K. (1998). "The general lineage concept of species: Species criteria and the process of speciation". In Howard, D.J.; Berlocher, S.H. (eds.). Endless forms: Species and speciation. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 57–75. ISBN 978-0-19-510901-6.
  27. ^ Miller, W. (December 2001). "The structure of species, outcomes of speciation and the 'species problem': Ideas for paleobiology". Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 176 (1): 1–10. Bibcode:2001PPP...176....1M. doi:10.1016/S0031-0182(01)00346-7.
  28. ^ Hey, J. (August 2006). "On the failure of modern species concepts". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 21 (8): 447–450. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.05.011. PMID 16762447.
  29. ^ Jump up to:a b Hull, D.L. (1999). "On the plurality of species: Questioning the party line". In Wilson, R.A. (ed.). Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 23–48. ISBN 978-0-262-73123-2.
  30. ^ Wheeler, QD; Meier, R (2000). Species concepts and phylogenetic theory: A debate. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-10143-1.
  31. ^ Zink, R.M.; McKitrick, M.C. (1995). "The debate over species concepts and its implications for ornithology". The Auk. 112 (3): 701–719.
  32. ^ Levin, D.A. (April 1979). "The nature of plant species". Science. 204 (4391): 381–384. Bibcode:1979Sci...204..381L. doi:10.1126/science.204.4391.381. PMID 17757999. S2CID 85119383.
  33. ^ Sokal, RR; Crovello, TJ (March–April 1970). "The biological species concept: A critical evaluation". The American Naturalist. 104(936): 127–153. doi:10.1086/282646.
  34. ^ Coyne, Jerry; Orr, HA (2004). Speciation. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates. ISBN 978-0-87893-089-0.
  35. ^ Hopf, F.A.; Hopf, F.W. (1985). The role of the Allee effect on species packing. Theor. Pop. Biol. 27, 27-50.
  36. ^ Bernstein, H.; Byerly, H.C.; Hopf, F.A.; Michod, Richard E. (December 1985). "Sex and the emergence of species". J. Theor. Biol. 117 (4): 665–90. doi:10.1016/S0022-5193(85)80246-0. PMID 4094459.
  37. ^ Bernstein, Carol; Bernstein, Harris (1991). Aging, sex, and DNA repair. Boston: Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-092860-6.
  38. ^ Michod, Richard E. (1995). Eros and evolution: a natural philosophy of sex. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. ISBN 978-0-201-44232-8.
  39. ^ Mayr, Ernst (1988). Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Harvard University Press. p. 317. ISBN 9780674896666.
  40. ^ Stamos, D. N. (2003). The Species Problem. Lexington Books. p. 95.
  41. ^ Okasha, S. 2002. Darwinian metaphysics: Species and the question of essentialism. Synthese. 131: 191–213.
  42. ^ Gregg, J.R. (November–December 1950). "Taxonomy, language and reality". The American Naturalist. 84 (819): 419–435. doi:10.1086/281639.
  43. ^ Burma, B.H. (1954). "Reality, existence, and classification: A discussion of the species problem". In Slobodchikoff, C.N. (ed.). Concepts of species. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. pp. 193–209.
  44. ^ Ghiselin, M.T. (1997). Metaphysics and the origin of species. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-3468-0.
  45. ^ Dupré, J. (2001). "In defence of classification". Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. 32: 203–219.
  46. ^ Jump up to:a b Haldane, J.B.S. (1956). "Can a species concept be justified?". In Sylvester-Bradley, P.C. (ed.). The species concept in paleontology. London: Systematics Association. pp. 95–96.
  47. ^ Hull, D.L. (September 1978). "A matter of individuality" (PDF). Philosophy of Science. 45 (3): 335–360. doi:10.1086/288811.
  48. ^ Jardine, N. (March 1969). "A logical basis for biological classification". Systematic Zoology. 18 (1): 37–52. doi:10.2307/2412409. JSTOR 2412409.
  49. ^ Jump up to:a b Hey, J. (July 2001). "The mind of the species problem". Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 16 (7): 326–329. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02145-0. PMID 11403864.
  50. ^ Dupré, J. (1999). "On the impossibility of a monistic account of species". In Wilson, R.A. (ed.). Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 3–22. ISBN 978-0-262-73123-2.
  51. ^ Mishler, B.D.; Donoghue, M.J. (December 1982). "Species concepts: A case for pluralism". Systematic Zoology. 31 (4): 491–503. doi:10.2307/2413371. JSTOR 2413371.
  52. ^ Ereshefsky, M. (December 1992). "Eliminative pluralism". Philosophy of Science. 59 (4): 671–690. doi:10.1086/289701.
  53. ^ Pigliucci, Massimo (2005). "Wittgenstein Solves (Posthumously) the Species Problem". Philosophy Now. Retrieved 2 December2016.
  54. ^ Nicholson, H.A. (1872). A manual of zoology. New York: Appleton and Company. p. 20.
  55. ^ Bonde, N. (1977). "Cladistic classification as applied to vertebrates". In Hecht, M.K.; Goody, P.C.; Hecht, B.M (eds.). Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 741–804.
  56. ^ Rieseberg, L.H.; Wood, T.E.; Baack, E.J. (2006). "The nature of plant species". Nature. 440 (524–527): 524–527. Bibcode:2006Natur.440..524R. doi:10.1038/nature04402. PMC 2443815. PMID 16554818.
 
ChocolateMouse said:
This is a DEEPLY oversimplified and inaccurate description... But perhaps if I was trying to explain evolution to a toddler I might say that? In reality the change is gradual over hundreds or even thousands of years.

Breeds and species are just a list of defined traits. Can you define a species to me? Biologists can't.

A species can't be defined by phenotype, since many animals with VERY different phenotypes (Chihuahuas and wolves for example) are the same species.
It can't be defined by chomosome count since many animals with different chomosome counts can have viable offspring like servals crossed with domestic shorthairs.
It can't be defined be reproductive populations since reproductively distinct populations may exist in other areas and still be able to breed back. And it doesn't even touch on the subject of animals like sharks and reptiles that can reproduce without any other animals.
It can't be defined by ecological niche. Flying squirrels and sugar gliders are totally different despite having nearly identical roles and appearance...

Wikipedia says;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
"While the definitions given above may seem adequate, when looked at more closely they represent problematic species concepts. For example, the boundaries between closely related species become unclear with hybridisation, in a species complex of hundreds of similar microspecies, and in a ring species. Also, among organisms that reproduce only asexually, the concept of a reproductive species breaks down, and each clone is potentially a microspecies. Though none of these are entirely satisfactory definitions, scientists and conservationists need a species definition which allows them to work, regardless of the theoretical difficulties. If species were fixed and clearly distinct from one another, there would be no problem, but evolutionary processes cause species to change continually, and to grade into one another. "

There's no real difference between "breed" and "species" except how tightly we're defining an animals traits. When it comes to the questions like this the answer is identical just on a different scale. Is it a Cream Legbar if I cross it to a barred rock, then back to CL again three times? Or is it mixed? It's all semantics.
Click to expand...
That's alot to reply to so I might just ...not , lol .

A species is something like say , an elephant, a reptile and a bird are very different ! Two reptiles can't lay an egg and have a chicken baby .
No matter how long it takes ! ( I got to put this in lol )

@Weeg is right. I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything like that :) and wikipedia isn't very trustworthy
 

Similar threads

talkinboutchickens
  • Poll
Favorite place to advertise if you have chicks for sale?
Replies
1
Views
172
BDutch
BDutch

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom