Archaeologists discover and crack a thousand-year-old chicken egg
smithsonianmag.com
Archaeologists discover and crack a thousand-year-old chicken egg
1–10 of 23 posts
Re: Archaeologists discover and crack a thousand-year-old chicken egg
#2Re: Archaeologists discover and crack a thousand-year-old chicken egg
#3I'm amazed there was still yolk in there! Although I'm sure it's probably decomposed I would still love to see a picture of 1k year old egg yolk!
Re: Archaeologists discover and crack a thousand-year-old chicken egg
#4So the egg really did come first after all.
and this one was long after chickens.
Re: Archaeologists discover and crack a thousand-year-old chicken egg
#5Re: Archaeologists discover and crack a thousand-year-old chicken egg
#6So the egg really did come first after all.
well yeah, but we knew that long ago. fish, dinosaurs, etc. and this one was long after chickens.
It's not interesting even when you don't intentionally misinterpret it. If a chicken egg is an egg from which a chicken will hatch, then the egg came first by definition. If a chicken egg is an egg laid by a chicken, then the chicken came first by definition.
Re: Archaeologists discover and crack a thousand-year-old chicken egg
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
well yeah, but we knew that long ago. fish, dinosaurs, etc. and this one was long after chickens.
No one has ever interpreted the question as "which came first, the chicken or the fish egg?" It's not interesting even when you don't intentionally misinterpret it. If a chicken egg is an egg from which a chicken will hatch, then the egg came first by definition. If a chicken egg is an egg laid by a chicken, then the chicken came first by definition.
Re: Archaeologists discover and crack a thousand-year-old chicken egg
#8Re: Archaeologists discover and crack a thousand-year-old chicken egg
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
well yeah, but we knew that long ago. fish, dinosaurs, etc. and this one was long after chickens.
No one has ever interpreted the question as "which came first, the chicken or the fish egg?" It's not interesting even when you don't intentionally misinterpret it. If a chicken egg is an egg from which a chicken will hatch, then the egg came first by definition. If a chicken egg is an egg laid by a chicken, then the chicken came first by definition.
If God put chickens on the Earth then they came first obviously.
If chickens evolved from some close but not quite chicken ancestor then the first chicken hatched from an egg with a beneficial genetic mutation.
Re: Archaeologists discover and crack a thousand-year-old chicken egg
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one has ever interpreted the question as "which came first, the chicken or the fish egg?" It's not interesting even when you don't intentionally misinterpret it. If a chicken egg is an egg from which a chicken will hatch, then the egg came first by definition. If a chicken egg is an egg laid by a chicken, then the chicken came first by definition.
The whole question is a proxy for the evolution question. If God put chickens on the Earth then they came first obviously. If chickens evolved from some close but not quite chicken ancestor then the first chicken hatched from an egg with a beneficial genetic mutation.