'The chicken came first, not the egg', scientists prove

[Peace]

'The chicken came first, not the egg', scientists prove

It’s an age-old puzzle that’s stumped generations of scientists.

Eggs came after chickens... and that's a fact
But now they believe they have cracked the conundrum of what came first: the chicken or the egg.



British researchers say the chicken must have come first as the formation of eggs is only possible thanks to a protein found in the chicken’s ovaries.

‘It had long been suspected that the egg came first but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first,’ said Dr Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University, who worked with counterparts at Warwick University.
‘The protein had been identified before and it was linked to egg formation but by examining it closely we have been able to see how it controls the process,’ he added.

The protein – called ovocledidin-17 (OC-17) – acts as a catalyst to speed up the development of the shell.

Scientists used a super computer called HECToR, based in Edinburgh, to ‘zoom in’ on the formation of an egg.

It showed OC-17 was crucial in kick-starting crystallisation – the early stages of forming a shell.

The protein coverts calcium carbonate into calcite crystals which makes up the egg shell, creating six grammes of shell every 24 hours.

Prof John Harding, also of Sheffield University, said the discovery could have other uses.

‘Understanding how chickens make shells is fascinating in itself but can also give clues towards designing new materials,’ he said.

Next challenge: Why did the chicken cross the road?

source:http://www.metro.co.uk/news/835020-t...ientists-prove

[Zeeshan]

This was actually a good find. Not sure why it got no replies. I think bc hates you peace.

[Peace]

Originally Posted by ZeeshanM
This was actually a good find. Not sure why it got no replies. I think bc hates you peace.

I was thinking the same.

Hortal, jalaow-poraow, jail-bondi er manoshikota jekhane, shekhane peace hated hobei.

However, I am not disappointed. Everyone knows that light does not exist without dark. Similarly, love does not exist without hate.
The more BC hates me, the more I will love the BC.

[Imteaz]

Nice information. Thanks.

[kalpurush]

Ha! Ha!! Finally Murgi wins!!!

Thank you Peace bhai for the news. My son was much relieved as you helped him to find the answer ^^^

[al-Sagar]

TRIVIA: U have ordered the following Two Dishes. (fried chicken and fried egg)

which of these will come first i.e served first ???

HINT: scroll up and read post no 1 again

NB: this trivia is meant to test how good u have understood the theory described in the title post.

[Peace]

Originally Posted by offstump
TRIVIA: U have ordered the following Two Dishes. (fried chicken and fried egg)

which of these will come first i.e served first ???

HINT: scroll up and read post no 1 again

NB: this trivia is meant to test how good u have understood the theory described in the title post.

Two egg threads (zeeshan +blah) alone got 43 replies together.
My egg and chicken thread together got only 5 replies.
Given the statistics above, I guess, egg will be served first.

[Nafi]

So basically this proves birds did not evolve from reptiles.

[Kabir]

I hope this can help in making me understand the aanda-induced argument about dictatorship.

[shaad]

Originally Posted by Metro

'The chicken came first, not the egg', scientists prove.

It’s an age-old puzzle that’s stumped generations of scientists.

But now they believe they have cracked the conundrum of what came first: the chicken or the egg.

British researchers say the chicken must have come first as the formation of eggs is only possible thanks to a protein found in the chicken’s ovaries.

‘It had long been suspected that the egg came first but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first,’ said Dr Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University, who worked with counterparts at Warwick University.
‘The protein had been identified before and it was linked to egg formation but by examining it closely we have been able to see how it controls the process,’ he added.

The Metro story is wrong and I'll let P. Z. Myers, from the Science Blog Pharyngula explain why.

Originally Posted by P. Z. Myers

No. What they found was a specific molecule called ovocleidin which is a member of a family of C-type lectin-like proteins. These things are all over the place; they're cell adhesion molecules, some are involved in cell signaling, some function in modulating the immune system and blood clotting pathways. They're even found in snake venoms. They're found in everything from C. elegans to mammals. Their key property is that they bind calcium.

In birds, these proteins have been coopted to regulate egg shell formation. They bind calcium and can seed the crystallization of calcium carbonate, and also control the rate of crystal formation. Chickens have ovocleidin, but geese have an ortholog, ansocalcin, and ostriches have struthiocleidin. There seems to be a lot of lability in what particular calcium-binding protein is used in shell formation, and it's probably the case that most of the sequence is free to mutate without affecting the nucleating function.

You simply can't make the conclusion the reporter was making here. The species ancestral to Gallus gallus laid eggs, the last common ancestor of all birds laid eggs, the reptiles that preceded the birds laid eggs…the appearance of egg laying was not coincident with the evolution of ovocleidin. The first chicken that acquired the protein we call ovocleidin now by mutation of a prior protein also hatched from an egg.

Note that no statement of "chicken before egg" occurs in the original research article: Freeman, C., Harding, J., Quigley, D., & Rodger, P. (2010). Structural Control of Crystal Nuclei by an Eggshell Protein Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 49 (30), 5135-5137. In the initial press release from the University of Warwick, the "chicken before egg" notion is included as an innocent tongue-in-cheek aside to spice up the story:

Researchers at the University of Warwick and the University of Sheffield have applied computing power to crack a problem in egg shell formation. The work may also give a partial answer to the age old question “what came first the chicken or the egg?” The answer to the question in this context is “chicken” or – at least a particular chicken protein.

Note the cautious use of "partial answer", "in this context" and "at least a particular chicken protein" by the writer to try to avoid misleading the reader. But of course all context and subtleties are omitted by newspapers like the Metro, who are only interested in a sensational story, and not accurate science journalism.

Peace, while I am aware that your citing this Metro article here was for humorous purposes only, please keep in mind that many people read this thread, and that some might have taken it at face value to conclude erroneously that evolution does not occur. Just a thought, but you might want to include an explanatory disclaimer next time.

[shaad]

Originally Posted by Nafi
So basically this proves birds did not evolve from reptiles.

No, Nafi, as my previous post shows, different versions of these calcium binding C-type lectin-like proteins were co-opted in different bird species to catalyse the transition of calcium carbonate into a crystalline phase to give rise to a rigid eggshell. Reptiles species exist with both hard and soft eggshells; there's thus no reason to believe that the common bird ancestor did not evolve from a reptile, either a soft-eggshelled one, with the co-opting or evolution of the relevant C-type lectin-like protein during or after the transition, or from a hard egg-shelled reptile, where the transition had already occurred.

[Peace]

Originally Posted by shaad
....
Peace, while I am aware that your citing this Metro article here was for humorous purposes only, please keep in mind that many people read this thread, and that some might have taken it at face value to conclude erroneously that evolution does not occur. Just a thought, but you might want to include an explanatory disclaimer next time.

shaad bhai,
Thank you for your post and well presented argument regarding the findings.

The findings was not only published in the metro, but also televised live to public by the Sky News, UK, including an interview from Dr Freeman. There was no disclaimer by the Sky News or Dr Freeman.

My post does not serve any other purpose, other than those served by the Sky News, Metro or Dr Freeman. There was no hint of engaging or disputing evolution in my post. For that reasons, I am unable to take any responsibilities arising from people’s assumption or imagination.
Without being disrespectful, I felt that your suggestion was unreasonable.

[shaad]

Peace,

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was accusing you of deliberately engaging or disputing evolution. The biology community has to deal both with a large number of zealots who will jump on anything and twist facts in any way to suggest that evolution does not occur (and this particular story, with its "chicken-before-egg" twist was no exception), and with innocent individuals (e.g. Nafi, unless he was being ironic), not very well versed in the arcane details of our research, who might draw wrong conclusions from such a story.

Suffice it to say that I don't, by any means, mean to imply that you have a responsibility for the conclusions that people draw (freedom of expression, etc.); I was just suggesting that, in cases like this, where it is easy to see the flaws in the Metro report as well as the erroneous conclusions some readers might leap to, a little disclaimer/discussion pointing those out wouldn't hurt.

Tangential remark: Both the current complexity of science and the publish-or-perish nature of our profession makes it difficult for most scientists to engage the lay public and keep them well informed about modern scientific advancements. And I'll be the first to admit that this isn't a particularly good situation -- a well-informed citizenry is needed both for setting science policy and because it is essentially their tax money that is being used for scientific research. But the situation certainly isn't helped when certain newspapers and magazines indulge in sensationalism instead of responsible science journalism.

[Zeeshan]

shaad bhai is like the grim uncle who brings crazy funeral stories to children's birthday parties. thanks for derailing the thread to a science class. wtg!

[goru]

I am surprised... no one's commented about how hungry this thread is making them... :|

[bujhee kom]

The chicken and the egg came first...soon followed by the cutlet and the sunny side up over a pudding.

[One World]

So a reptile just morphed into a chicken and then reproduced, laid and hatched eggs. Ridiculing claims.

[Peace]

Originally Posted by One World
So a reptile just morphed into a chicken and then reproduced, laid and hatched eggs. Ridiculing claims.

Dr Freeman and his colleagues referred to some theories that suggest that chickens' ancestors evolved to create hard eggs around the time of the dinosaurs.

The findings provide strong evidence that the parents would have to start to resemble a chicken first before they can lay an egg that will hatch into a chicken. Over their lifetime prior to laying the egg, their DNA would have to mutate to make this possible.

In philosophical terms, the chicken would have to have come first to ensure someone keeps the egg warm for hatching it.

[One World]

Originally Posted by Peace
Dr Freeman and his colleagues referred to some theories that suggest that chickens' ancestors evolved to create hard eggs around the time of the dinosaurs.

The findings provide strong evidence that the parents would have to start to resemble a chicken first before they can lay an egg that will hatch into a chicken. Over their lifetime prior to laying the egg, their DNA would have to mutate to make this possible.

In philosophical terms, the chicken would have to have come first to ensure someone keeps the egg warm for hatching it.

I just see the vicious circle from above post which makes this thread non-sensical keeping the question as a constant mystery.

[Peace]

Originally Posted by One World
I just see the vicious circle from above post which makes this thread non-sensical keeping the question as a constant mystery.

I am enjoying the vicious cycle of spinning not only in this thread, but also in the forum in general.

The purpose of any scientific study is specific and goal oriented. The research originally aimed to figure out how animals make eggshells because it's an extraordinarily strong yet lightweight material that no human is unable to replicate. The researchers aimed and hoped to learn how to develop a manmade equivalent by learning about the way animals make eggshells. The reasons Chickens were chosen as their test subjects simply because the protein was easy to study. Subsequently, this leads to conclusion what came first -chicken or egg.

It is always a good practice among scientific society to appreciate the findings and how it can benefit the future of all kind; and offer constructive criticism, if there is any.

The results of this study could be of benefit in the medical field since human bones and teeth are made in a similar way as eggshells. This could lead to a better understanding of how to rebuild human bones. Furthermore, the study and findings could assist figure out how crystal structures can be made and destroyed, since the eggshells are made up of microscopic crystals. Learning process of how this can be done could lead to the elimination of limescale crystals on pipes and kettles.

The purpose of the study was not to investigate as to how chicken evolved. This is another issue which require further scientific investigation.

Failure to appreciate the benefit of findings and ridiculing the scientific findings based on irrelevant consideration is unethical, non-sensical, and act(s) of spin at the least.

[One World]

Great, grew up as a kid who always went that extra miles to learn few things, in many cases with disappointment, but successes were there. Never really cared to deny science because that is upon which I based my life. So if you are thinking I am not appreciating the effort of a scientific research or the findings then that would be the joke of the century.

Few things we need to notice, before really getting into an argument,

1. My first post was saying the claims were ridiculous, not the research whether that was able to find a truth or not, the effort of the venture must never be looked down upon (only if that makes a monetary sense - like for BD government if starts spending on a research like this while we have gazillions of subtle areas that need attention would not be rational, eh?).

2. The thread was based on the catchy part of the article, with the title you claimed what the article made a reference claim, rather if your emphasis was on the information gathered and you were questioning the authenticity of the claim then this thread could make sense.

3. The use of words 'scientists prove' are very disturbing, if you think it is not then read Shaad's posts again.

4. Lastly I generally hate to reveal too much about my personal life in an open forum, but I am a researcher in a particular field as well and I know how it goes. There are hundreds of journals and each journal is producing papers like mushrooms. Publication is generally the main goal of a post-Masters student, sometimes this goal surpasses the real need for quality work. Somehow getting another paper done and putting it under his/her research experience belt becomes the main target.
The paper written (not this article) may or may not be of value to scientific community - most cases it is not. Sometimes they get highly criticized for publishing such work of cr*ps. That does not stop a good researcher being remain aggressive and relentlessly hunt for the truth.