this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
13 points (76.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43856 readers
1976 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

EDIT : It seems as no one understood what i was talking about and maybe its my fault for not elaborating . I always thought chicken was a metaphor for this paradox and not really meaning chicken as a specific spiece . So my question is how did the ancestor of chicken came to be if it was born (egg) wouldn't it need a parent or if it was a parent (chicken ) woudn't it need to be born ? Or did all the creatures start out as bacteria and climbed out from ocean through evalution if so why isn't any new species being born this way or am i missing something ?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cali_ash@lemmy.wtf 1 points 9 months ago

Something not defined as a chicken would have to lay an egg that hatched something defined as a chicken at some point. Otherwise we couldn’t have chickens.

Yep. But at least with our current definition of what a "species" (roughly a group of organism that can interbreed and have fertile offspring), that's not possible.

If some not-chicken would lay an egg that hatches a chicken, that chicken would have nothing to breed with. It would basically be a genetic defect that makes it infertile.