this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2026
11 points (72.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

47625 readers
1421 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MrSmoothPP@lemmy.zip -2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I'm no biologist, but I'm pretty sure this ignores how fluid the evolution is from regular bird to proto-chicken to chicken.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 days ago

By the well ordering theorem, no matter what you choose as your definition of "chicken", there must be a first.

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Not really there is a well defined line that defines what is/isn't a chicken, that's really the only thing needed for this question.

The issue is the term proto-chicken isn't well defined.

But for it to be considered a different species it would have to not be able to reproduce with a modern chicken (which doesn't mean it can't reproduce with early chickens).

[–] Typhoon@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)

there is a well defined line that defines what is/isn’t a chicken

You'll have no problem citing the exact definition then.

[–] bryndos@fedia.io 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The exact definition doesn't matter though, every chicken whether the first or the last, or from the blurry zone between proto-chicken and chicken, has many much older eggs in it's ancestry. Probably somethig fish something.

[–] bill_brasky@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 days ago (2 children)

The point is that there's no single generation where the species went from not a chicken to a chicken. That's not how evolution works

[–] bryndos@fedia.io 1 points 5 days ago

No the point is exactly what i think , in exactly the way that i think it. I understand exactly entirely and completely how evolution works. /s

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Revolitionary single mutations do occure sometimes and can mean speciation, so in some cases, there can be one individual that is the true first of the new species.

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) is a domesticated form of the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus), originally native to Southeast Asia. It was first domesticated around 8,000 years ago and is one of the most common and widespread domesticated animals in the world. Chickens are primarily kept for their meat and eggs, though they are also kept as pets.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken

The red junglefowl (Gallus gallus), also known as the Indian red junglefowl (and formerly the bankiva or bankiva-fowl), is a species of tropical, galliform bird in the phasianid family, found across much of Southeast and parts of South Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_junglefowl

A species (pl. species) is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity. It can be defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

[–] Typhoon@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 days ago

The first two links are irrelevant because they describe physical characteristics and not a well defined line. The quotes you copied are vague descriptions at best.

The last quote you emphasized says "it can be defined" which shows it's not a well defined line. Also, there are quite a few cross-species hybrids that have produced fertile offspring.

Here's a list of some

African forest elephants and African bush elephants are known to hybridize with each other where their ranges overlap.[17] Evidence shows that they can form hybrid zones where their ranges overlap, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda. Hybrids have been found to be fertile, and a significant number of elephants in hybrid zones, such as Kibale National Park in Uganda, show intermediate physical characteristics.

These birds aren't even in the same family and have hybridized

The red-crested cardinal (Paroaria coronata, family Thraupidae) has hybridized between the northern cardinal (Cardinalia cardinalis, family Cardinalidae), shiny cowbird (Molothrus bonariensis, family Icteridae), and chestnut-capped blackbird.

The concept of a species is a lot more flexible and less-defined than you think.