871
Just so there's no confusion
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2026
871 points (97.7% liked)
Funny
14439 readers
813 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That chicken's parent laid an egg though so it wasn't the first egg laying animal.
Correct, not the first egg laying animal, however the first chicken was hatched from a chicken egg.
No, I don't think I'd agree. Something gave birth to something with a mutation that caused it to lay eggs that we'd call chicken eggs that produce chicken. Itself was born from a creature that didn't lay chicken eggs.
Well now i think im inclined to agree with you.
I have been defining it as a true chicken is the animal that came from the egg and reproduces the same animal in egg form.
But if you were to say instead that the final mutation that created the gentically distinct animal we call a chicken, would still be that animal regardless of how it was created.
Similar to if a chain of self replicating robots is traced back to the origonal unit, its still a self replicating robot even if the first was built by hands.