Archive for the ‘Evolution and Genetics’ Category

Truth Is Out: Chicken Came First

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

By David L. Brown

Chickens Get the Last Laugh

Chickens Get the Last Laugh

A little over four years ago I posted a piece here responding to a report on the all-important scientific question of our age, the chicken-egg controversy. I wrote:

“Addressing the major scientific issue of which came first, the chicken or the egg, a panel of eggsperts have concluded that the egg had to come first. Star Phoenix Base doesn’t think this is egg-sactly right.”

Well, pardon me while I cackle. Now a news report from Mail Online, the web site of the British newspaper The Daily Mail, turns that question around and claims that it was indeed the chicken, not the egg that came first. Here’s a link to the Mail Online story.

Previous attempts to explain the egg-first scenario fell back on the idea that two unrelated species must have interbred to fertilize the egg from which the first chicken hatched, so that neither of the parents were themselves chickens. That seemed unlikely to me, since different species generally can’t interbreed, or if they do, the offspring are sterile (for example, the mule).

Well, thank goodness this deep scientific question is answered at last, thanks to researchers at Sheffield and Warwick Universities who used a super computer to hatch their solution The new chicken-first theory is based on the discovery that the ability to form eggshells in the special way chickens do “is only found in a chicken’s ovaries,” the Mail Online article explained. “Therefore, an egg can only exist if it has been inside a chicken — thereby proving chickens must have come first.”

If you’d enjoy more pun-ishing ventures into poultry-related word play, you may want to read my original post, “Egg-regious Errors in Chicken Logic,” May 29, 2006, here.

Did Language Begin with a Gesture and a Word?

Wednesday, December 27th, 2006

By David L. Brown

Disclosure statement: I am not Noam Chomsky nor do I have any formal training in the “science” of linguistics. However, I am someone to whom language has been a supreme influence, both in its spoken and particularly its written forms. With deference to Chomsky and his fellow linguists I humbly submit that the study of language may be somewhat comparable to the ancient Chinese art of reading the cracks in tortoise shells or the pronouncements of shamans around ancient campfires. That said, I wish to present my personal thoughts on the possible roots of language, that unique skill that has made human civilization possible and which sets we members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens apart from all other creatures.

As I understand it (and since I am not a serious student of linguistics I may well have a simplistic and incorrect impression of this), many linguists believe that language is something that occurred because of evolutionary changes in the human brain. Chomsky has concluded that the ability to use language is “hard wired” in the human brain from birth, and I will cede him that assumption. He further postulates that a common sense of “grammar,” the ability to put words together in certain standardized ways no matter what language the speaker is raised in, exists in human instinct. This too may be true, but whether it is or not doesn’t really matter for the ideas I will propose in this essay.

The question I will explore is: How did this all start? What was the defining event that set humans on the path to using language? Did pre-humans begin to grow huge brains in anticipation of attaining at some time in the remote future the ability to use language to communicate complex ideas and concepts? That does not seem likely. The idea that language is an evolutionary development of the human brain makes less sense to me than the idea that our brains evolved to accommodate the “discovery” of language. It’s a chicken or egg thing, and the idea of language evolving is not really the way evolution works. Plants and animals do not evolve toward some future condition, but in order to adapt to present ones.

Our animal brethren obviously have some ability to at least recognize language, or at least simple words and phrases, and in some cases to replicate the sound if not to fully understand the meaning of human words. One has only to listen to a talkative parrot to understand this fact. Even crows and ravens can make human sounds and almost appear to have the power of speech. I have a vivid memory of an experience many years ago in Lincoln Park in Chicago. I was walking past a bench where a man was sitting alone. I happened to observe as a crow flew up, settled on the other end of the bench, and addressed the man clearly: “Hello. My name’s Joe. What’s yours?” This was during the era when a man named Alan Funt had a TV show called “Candid Camera” in which people were placed in embarrassing positions which were being recorded by hidden cameras. I could see the thought process of the man on the bench as he looked warily around for the camera crew, and I have always felt it was poor manners indeed that he did not engage Joe the Crow in conversation but merely looked uncomfortable and got up and walked away. I would have at least had the good grace to tell Joe my name and ask him how he was, if only to see what response I might have gotten. No doubt a request for food.

Those of us who have been blessed with having pets know how smart “dumb” animals can be. We once had a German shepherd dog that was privileged to have a great number of “squeaky toys” in many shapes and forms. Each time we went to the grocery store, it seemed, we would purchase an addition for his vast collection. These included such things as a “sandwich,” a “hotdog,” a “mouse,” a “piece of cheese,” a “carrot,” and so forth. Each time we brought a new toy home we would introduce it to the dog, whose name was Prince, telling him its name. Later, it would be added to the rest in a large bucket in the corner of the living room. What is interesting about this is that when we would say “Prince — Get the…” and name one of the toys, he would go to the bucket, begin to throw toys all around as he searched for the requested one, and proudly bring it to us. Once a toy had been given to him and having been told its name just once, he never in several years made a mistake and brought us the wrong toy. Obviously, the ability to learn vocabulary is “hard wired” in the brain of an intelligent dog and many other animals as well as that of humans. The “grammar” described by Chomsky may not exist in animal brains, but many of the basic building blocks of language are obviously there, just as they must have been in our pre-language simian ancestors.

So how did the forebears of we “wise apes” learn to take language to the next stage and create a communications tool on which our human ancestors have built succeedingly complex civilizations? Well, now we get to my theory. Remembering that I am not a linguist, but also taking into account that linguistics may well be more an art or an exercise in philosophy than a science, please consider my idea with an open mind.

(more…)

Irrational Fear of GM Crops as Famine Looms

Monday, June 19th, 2006

By David L. Brown

The uncontrolled growth of the world’s population lies at the heart of most of our environmental, social, health, agricultural, and political problems. Let’s see, did I leave anything out of that dogmatic statement? Well, sure, because it would be just about as accurate to say that population growth lies at the root of everything that is wrong in the world. Trace each individual problem to its roots and over-population is almost certain to be found lurking there. Many experts believe that human numbers have already surpassed the level that the Earth can support.

When I was born in 1940 there were an estimated 2.3 billion people on the planet. By the time I graduated from college 21 years later, that number had edged up to about 3.08 billion, an addition of about 800 million or about 35 percent. Not too bad, but definitely moving up. So, are things going to be OK?

Well, no. Today, just a few minutes ago in fact, according to estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau’s “Population Clock,” the world’s population stood at 6,523,261,134 people and rising. In fact, those numbers are going up like the altimeter on a Space Shuttle headed for orbit. Factors such as improved medical and public health programs for the Third World and short-term increases in food production through improved crops developed by traditional methods (“the Green Revolution”) have made it possible for human numbers to continue to increase. But for how long can this go on?

(more…)

Egg-regious Errors in Chicken Logic

Monday, May 29th, 2006

By David L. Brown

It is being claimed that one of the most pressing questions of the ages has been answered—albeit without scientific rigor and in order to promote the release of a new Disney cartoon movie.

Addressing the major scientific issue of which came first, the chicken or the egg, a panel of eggsperts have concluded that the egg had to come first. Star Phoenix Base doesn’t think this is egg-sactly right, but first here is the main story as reported on CNN.com today:

LONDON, England — It’s a question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Now a team made up of a geneticist, philosopher and chicken farmer claim to have found an answer. It was the egg.

Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal’s life.

Therefore the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg.

Professor John Brookfield, a specialist in evolutionary genetics at the University of Nottingham, told the UK Press Association the pecking order was clear.

The living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken it would develop into, he said.

“Therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg,” he added. “So, I would conclude that the egg came first.” Read it all.

Now why would we differ with this conclusion? We’re not generally inclined to just go along with the rest of the flock, so we decided to peck out the alternatives, refusing to put all of our theoretical eggs in one basket so to speak. Of course, it is always difficult to gauge the distant past, to an era when the chicken was merely a twinkle in Col. Sanders’ eye. But let us give it a try.

First, Prof. Brookfield uses false logic in assigning a “pecking order” to this question, since only chickens, not eggs, are capable of pecking. This pun-ishing approach to a serious question is obviously intended to confuse the issue.

(more…)