Noisewar Internetlainen

In my world of nitty-picky pseudoscience, the news of the the resolution of the legendary Chicken-n'-Egg debate met with cynicism. The shockwave whooshed over our snorting countenances. The scientists aren't wholly right.

According to this eggciting study, the egg came first because an animal's DNA does not change while it is alive. The embryo in the egg would be the first to have a redesigned DNA that we could taxonomize as "chicken."

Sure. But flaws abound.

1. Genetic material CAN change during an animal's life. Not all single-celled organisms, for example, have invented conventional sex. It is possible to be mutated into the first of your species, if you survive.

2. The chicken or egg debate is understood to ask which comes first, a living being or the egg it was born from. Of course, if you are asking for the specific species of "chicken" then the genetic material was first found in the egg, as any high school bio flunky can tell you. If you mean a being or its egg, then the evidence of proto-cells and the theory that a blast of lightning into the primordial soup sparked the first life tells us that Adam wasn't an egg. He was a being capable of making eggs that make more Adams. Adam was a chicken. The chicken was a proto-cell.

3. What the debate really means is that while the egg came before the living species of "chicken," what came before both was conception. Meiosis is the true winnah.

4. Finally a personal rant. One and one are two, but one plus one is greater than two (albeit infintesimally so), so long as E=mc², and "plus" is a verb.