Comments on: ‘The chicken came first, not the egg’, scientists prove.. or do they?

By: sachin

sachin — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:24:36 +0000

i think that is fantastic work done by him because this always a tricky question……………………………………………

By: Tracey

Tracey — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 21:02:24 +0000

Phillis you do make me laugh. Who would have thought the chicken and egg debate would result in so much “discussion”.
I am not not as bright as most on this site and enjoy reading the different articles and the healthy discussions they produce. I do like to then go on and find out more about that subject as I do not take the one article to be gospel, since coming to the site I have learnt a lot about various different things. I can feel my brain expanding
So keep them coming. x

By: JCale

JCale — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:24:26 +0000

There’s no mention of chickens or eggs here? whats the debate about again? I thought it was about new materials. And do you people really think DB writes all this stuff? What a tiny world you must live in. Slap wrists Phillis for linking to the Metro of all places.

- It says ABEO in big red letters at the top – are you ALL blind? – agreed Metro links should be cut out – sorry about that. God forbid anyone should head over there and comment! It’s sunny outside don’t you lot have anything better to do? – Phillis

By: Gil

Gil — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:18:34 +0000

Phillis and Berber,
The article has indeed been changed – the sentence “But according to this article this seems to be a typical case of poor science journalism” has been added. This is really an insiginficant. Would you host an article espousing the reality of psychic powers, telekinesis, or alien contact , and consider it no problem so long as you dropped in a solitary sentence stating it’s actually nonsense?

If you want to discuss this news story without spreading BS, why don’t you make like the wonderful Pharyngula blog and get straight on debunking?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/chickens_eggs_this_is_no_way_t.php

- What about the heading in bold capitals that says “or do they?” – I’ll let you guys get upset about this and post your updates – anyone coming here and ignoring the updates and flurry of comments and links we ask them not to go to specsavers where they’re doing 2 for 1 right now – Phillis

By: Ellie

Ellie — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 04:12:21 +0000

Phyllis,

Thanks for taking my criticism on board and for updating the article, but I do have another couple of comments based on your responses…

For regular readers and fans it may be clear that Derren didn’t write that article but for passers by and casual visitors like my self it is his name on the mast head and so the assumption is going to be first that he wrote it. I note I am not the only person to make that mistake amongst these comments. Even knowing he didn’t write it, it still appears on his site and so I think it is entirely reasonable that readers associate the content with his opinion.

Secondly, I don’t know whether it is intentional or accidental, but your replies to some of these comments are coming across as defensive and accusatory.

- We do post the users name in bright red letters at the top of the post and always link to the original article. As you’ve seen we update and correct as well. We really can’t do any more than that to make it obvious that we are linking to someone else’s article – a large flashing red arrow maybe? – The blog comments are here for debate and to discuss the article. To isolate the headline, the corrections then ignore all comments and further ignore the fact it clearly wasn’t written by us we feel is a little unfair. We have posted several thousand articles over 2 years and we’re not perfect but to claim we’re “spreading negative PR in the name of science” is in my personal opinion an irrational knee-jerk reaction next to the 1000′s of other article we highlight. So sorry if I’ve come over defensive but we stand by our actions. – Phillis

By: spiderabc1

spiderabc1 — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:14:57 +0000

@iHeartDerren – I too say the chicken came first. One would have evolved during its lifetime and the egg would then be the second chicken having inherited the (mutated?) gene.

By: stu

stu — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 17:29:34 +0000

the egg must have come first because other animals that lay similar eggs must use the same protein and so evolved from the same ancestor unless they all evolved from chickens which i doubt.

By: Berber Anna

Berber Anna — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:24:07 +0000

Gil, if people choose to read a headline instead of the whole article, that’s hardly Phillis’ fault. You could equally make a case for removing articles about UFOs and conspiracy theories and such, because some people may see them as evidence for their woo beliefs. Removing anything that might be misunderstood would make this blog a rather boring place, imho.

By: Jess xxx

Jess xxx — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:57:10 +0000

> we started off with some really massive chickens, and they eventually shrunk down. )

By: Jess xxx

Jess xxx — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:56:08 +0000

I read an article about this in BBC Wildlife. The egg definitely came first. Evolution doesn’t happen by the animal itself changeing and morphing within its lifetime (like you see in Walking With Dinosaurs when they leap forward a few thousand years,) the changes happen to the original animal’s offspring. So, a lizard once laid an egg, and that egg hatched in to a lizard with wing-flaps (or something,) then the winged lizard laid an egg, which hatched in to a winged lizard with feathers, then the feathered lizard laid an egg, which hatched in to an early form of bird, and the birds kept on going, until one day, a half-parrot-half-chicken laid an egg, which hatched in to a full chicken. (Although I do remember hearing somewhere that chickens are more closely related to the T-Rex. So maybe >