Home & Chicken.ca
Canadians Want Canadian Chicken
Canadian chicken is nutritious, easy to prepare, versatile and now it is easier than ever to identify in restaurants and grocery stores - making it the number one dinner choice for Canadian families!
#MPChickenHero Winners
Check out the top three finalists!
Shopping with chicken.ca
Get shopping with chicken.ca
and our new grocery list app!
Recipe of the Week
Tzatziki Chicken Salad - This light and refreshing salad is the perfect dish to enjoy for lunch or dinner on a hot summer day.
Whole New World of Chicken!
Canadian chicken provides high quality nutrition from complete protein, B-vitamins, zinc, iron and more.
Beyond nutrition, creating chicken recipes inspired by other cultures can bring you a whole new world of flavour and allow you to learn about different cooking traditions.
Create a profile to save your Favourite recipes, comment and much more!
Sign up for our newsletter today!hipa ilike_Hwalii_F_Chicken精选集 - 虾米音乐
Loading...
入选曲目(26)
您需要登录后才可以留言，请用虾米帐号
关注虾米：Subscribe to the newsletter
&Stay in touch with the scientific world!
The Chicken And The Egg Problem - A View Of Evolution
At some point everyone has heard the question: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg.".& What is surprising about this question is that it can still produce any debate.It is surprisingly obvious yet one wonders what has contributed to its longevity and its countinued appearance in various arguments.Why obvious?& Well, let's consider the premises.& Unless one is predisposed to believing that animals simply appear, then we must reject the premise that a chicken can exist as a fully formed adult without any previous existence.& As a result, the only element left to examine is the egg.& Yet, an egg doesn't spring into existence fully formed either.However, the egg is a pre-requisite to any egg-laying animal, so we could conclude our answer to the question at this point already.& Whatever else one might think, an animal must be born to become an adult, and an egg-laying animal is hatched from an egg to become an adult.& Therefore an egg must precede the adult.& What gives rise to the supposition that there's something more to it?The problem is that the question operates under the flawed premise that species of any kind are absolute and that there are absolute cut-offs in how they are classified.& It is important to remember that a species is an arbitrary designation based on how we elect to classify particular animals.& If we were to examine the continuum of a chicken's evolutionary path, we would begin with some ancestor, and observe gradual variations occurring, until such time as we arrive at the animal we now call a chicken.& However, what we couldn't do, is to draw a definitive line during this evolutionary path and declare everything on one side of that line as pre-chickens, and everything afterwards as actual chickens. &One possible way we could approach such a situation would be to use something like a genetic map to specifically define what we consider to be a chicken and then simply examine the genome of each creature until a match occurred.& Obviously this match would've occurred in the egg [using our philosophical question], so we can definitely consider the egg to have occurred first, but it is equally important to note that our selection of a genetic map is also quite arbitrary.& We, as observers, have set the definition, but it would be erroneous to conclude that some absolute dividing line had been crossed beyond our arbitrary definition.An important point that is often overlooked, is that species designation often implies a directionality to evolution, as if there is some force that is compelling natural selection in the direction of producing a particular species.& Yet, every creature alive is already a complete animal.& Every one may well possess traits that are important, and given the right environmental pressures could prove themselves to be the ancestor of some future species.& Of course, there is no way to know that presently, but it is important to recognize that there are no "transitory" species.& There are no "missing links".& Each animal is a continuation of its predecessors, and if sufficient changes accumulate, then we may consider them to be different species.& However, that is an imposition of our rules and not nature's.So we would find that these distinctions we use for classification aren't absolute and are only apparent when comparing these species over a sufficiently large number of generations where we can clearly see which is the ancestor and which is the modern day animal.In the end, the point is that each animal lays an egg, and the animal that emerges is similar to the parent with the possibility of possessing a minor variation (1).& So, strictly speaking it isn't necessarily an exact replica of the parent.& As this process continues over many generations, we find that as each offspring varies slightly from its parents, the difference between it and its more distant ancestors becomes increasingly pronounced.& Our designation of a species is little more than arbitrary divisions to account for varying degrees of evolutionary divergence.& Consequently we can safely say that the egg always came first, albeit through a long ancestral line of eggs if we are to be precise (2).================================================================================(1)& This is in keeping with the slow evolutionary path generally considered in natural selection.& Clearly events and the environment may accelerate changes due to a variety of other causes, but the essence of the argument would remain the same whether the changes occurred over hundreds of generations or over one.& The egg must always come first.(2)& Some arguments have tried to claim that this question is subject to the specific definition of an egg, in whether one means that it is intended to produce the chicken, or it is the first result of an actual chicken.& This argument fails, because it presumes prior knowledge regarding the animal that laid the egg.& Consider that if one were to simply receive an egg and analyze it genetically, if it contained a chicken, then it would be considered a chicken egg, regardless of the animal that laid it.& Again, the egg is a pre-requisite to the existence of chickens regardless of how one wishes to define the terms.
More Articles
I'm not big on writing things about myself so a friend on this site (Brian Taylor) opted to put a few sentences together:
Hopefully I'll be able...
Related Articles on Science 2.0
It is surprisingly obvious yet one wonders what ...... it is that makes people still write whole articles about it instead of simply telling the kids (because it is a preschool question no doubt) in one sentence.
| 04/07/13 | 05:08 AM
Oh, it's not the question itself.& As I said, that's trivial and is easily dealt with.& The point was to use it to discuss the issue of species designation and how the question actually plays into that, more than representing any philosophical issue.
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/07/13 | 11:03 AM
derek_potter (not verified) | 04/09/13 | 19:54 PM
That's the whole point.& It is biological and it's arbitrary.& At one stage we define DNA that indicates this is an organism that we now call a chicken.& Therefore at some point, the egg is the chicken and the creature that laid it is not.& Similarly, at some point a chicken will lay an egg that we can then claim is no longer a chicken, because the DNA is outside of our arbitrary definition of what that is.However, one of the elements of this discussion is that each chicken isn't an exact DNA replica of the parent, so determining when something is or is not a chicken is completely arbitrary and it isn't likely that we would be able to tell where that line is in any specific sense.& Instead, it is easier for us to imagine it when there are numerous generations separating the organisms in question.That's why I indicated that observing the changes, generation by generation wouldn't allow us to make that determination so easily, because each small change goes by essentially unnoticed.& That's the point in arguing that our designation of species is only an indicator of how much divergence has occurred from whatever our base organism is.In other words, Sascha's sarcasm aside, it isn't about treating the question as a serious philosophical issue, as much as it is about using it as a platform to discuss our notions of what constitutes a species and what such an arbitrary separation signifies.Basically, if we were to trace any given species back through its ancestors, then we can see that we are simply selecting various traits based on our own sense of classification and really has little or nothing to do with the organism itself.& If we were to trace the DNA back and discovered a T-Rex as the ancestor, then technically we would have to recognize that the T-Rex is still just a chicken.& In other words, the continuum of evolution would say that they are the same creature, albeit the modern day chicken has accumulated more variations and adapted to different conditions, but it would be a continuum, nonetheless.There would be no distinct separation that would allow us to say that this is where one organism ends and the other begins.& Yet, we do it all the time with such classifications, which suggests that they are separate and distinct beings, rather than recognizing that they are merely names we've assigned to the divergence that exists within the same organisms.&
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/09/13 | 20:24 PM
derek_potter (not verified) | 04/10/13 | 06:20 AM
keiths (not verified) | 04/09/13 | 20:33 PM
derek_potter (not verified) | 04/10/13 | 06:03 AM
keiths (not verified) | 04/10/13 | 12:10 PM
derek_potter (not verified) | 04/11/13 | 15:22 PM
keiths (not verified) | 04/11/13 | 16:21 PM
derek_potter (not verified) | 04/11/13 | 17:38 PM
keiths (not verified) | 04/11/13 | 18:02 PM
derek_potter (not verified) | 04/12/13 | 08:46 AM
keiths (not verified) | 04/12/13 | 11:10 AM
Indeed you dig yourself into a hole when you substitute one ambiguous
term, "egg", with another, "chicken egg" and then argue what it means in
common useage. The point is not some subtlety about the &meaning of the
word "egg" for Pete's sake!Who's Pete, is he a rooster maybe? Where do the roosters fit into all of this, that's what I want to know?
My 5 min film 'Hidden Dangers for ALS' entry in the AAN #2015Neurofilm Festival is listed no. 22 of 65 entries at
| 04/11/13 | 16:51 PM
I agree with Gerhard about there being a lot of fictional dividing lines in evolution and humans just wanting to categorize everything neatly and this creates misleading distinctions and comprehensions of what is really happening. One thing that really fascinates me is that different species seem to be able to cross breed quite often. both nowadays and in the past, look at humans and Neanderthals for example. These inter-special offspring sometimes have fertile offspring themselves which now includes many of us humans and yet you don't hear much about this when people are discussing the process of evolution. The evolutionary tree has branches growing back into itself, Oliver Knevitt wrote a good Science20 article about this i seem to remember? I'll try and find it. Also this
called 'Did Dinosaurs Become Chickens?' is very interesting.
My 5 min film 'Hidden Dangers for ALS' entry in the AAN #2015Neurofilm Festival is listed no. 22 of 65 entries at
| 04/11/13 | 19:32 PM
It's pretty clear that there is no "tree of life", it's more like a "bush", especially when one includes Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT).& However, it appears that the influence of genetics is even influential in higher organisms.& Consider the following article.
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/11/13 | 19:52 PM
derek_potter (not verified) | 04/12/13 | 09:20 AM
That's true for specific species like that, but if you consider that the overwhelming majority of life doesn't even reproduce sexually, then you can see how other influences would be more prevalent.
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/12/13 | 10:16 AM
I imagine it's hard for branches to amalgamate once the inter-fertility is lost.Not if you are a GM scientist :) I'm always amazed at how many different species can reproduce. When I was at school I have a vague memory of being taught that one of the definitions of what made a species was the ability to breed and produce fertile offspring but some of these interspecial hybrids are still fertile. The pictures above from Wiki's
are of a zonkey, a jaglion and a liger but there are many more interspecial hybrids that can occur naturally, ie branches of the tree of life growing back into each other and probably genetically modifying (GM) technology will ensure that there will soon be many more, I would imagine. It will stop being a tree of life or bush and become a man made lattice work :)
My 5 min film 'Hidden Dangers for ALS' entry in the AAN #2015Neurofilm Festival is listed no. 22 of 65 entries at
| 04/12/13 | 18:39 PM
Actually there are quite a few species that can interbreed, so it isn't as specific a trait as is often assumed.
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/12/13 | 19:06 PM
derek_potter (not verified) | 04/14/13 | 12:11 PM
What good are the wings underwater?
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/14/13 | 12:13 PM
derek_potter (not verified) | 04/14/13 | 12:27 PM
O evolution is cleverer than we are.
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/14/13 | 12:28 PM
&!--[if gte mso 9]&
&![endif]--&
I like your article.& Short and simple with a logical
thought train.& I can not understand why some people must explain things
by adding 9 extra dimensions to space and time.
Nature is not static.&
It changes everyday.& When the
accumulated change is great enough, we classify it as a new species.& Evolution is not that difficult to figure
| 04/07/13 | 22:41 PM
keiths (not verified) | 04/07/13 | 23:16 PM
... because it is understood that by 'chicken eggs' we mean 'eggs produced
by chickens', not 'eggs that are capable of producing chickens'.That's incorrect, since the genetic material would still be that of a chicken, fertilized or not.& After all, it isn't fertilization that determines the species.& However, are you suggesting that we are ambiguous about what creature the eggs are capable of producing?If not, then you're arguing semantics and not biology.& One thing is certain.& There is no instance of a chicken existing that didn't originate from an egg.& The point is that the question itself only has relevance when it comes to the boundary state between species.& In other words, when we declare a species to be of one particular kind or another [i.e. we create a dividing line].& Therefore at some point in the chicken's evolutionary history, there was an instant of where the species that laid the egg was not a chicken according to our definition, but the egg was.
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/08/13 | 00:07 AM
keiths (not verified) | 04/08/13 | 00:59 AM
Not true.& By definition, chickens can only originate from fertilized eggs, so whatever variations you select they are irrelevant.& They produce nothing.It is not a semantic argument.& It is quite specific with respect to how we recognize a species, so arguing about supermarkets and local interpretations has nothing to do with anything.
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/08/13 | 07:40 AM
keiths (not verified) | 04/08/13 | 10:46 AM
Sorry, but that simply isn't true.& You're assuming prior knowledge which isn't necessary.If we can agree on what constitutes a chicken genetically [which presumably we can], then one can establish that a chicken exists both in and out of the egg.An egg is NOT a chicken egg, it is a chicken's egg.& There's your semantic argument.& A defective egg is nothing, regardless of what people call it.More explicitly, we define a chicken embryo as that which is developing in an egg.& It is not the property of its parent that is used in order to derive the name.& In other words, it can already be established that it is a chicken while it is still in the egg.& There is certainly no ambiguity there.There is no such thing as accepted usage.& If I present an egg to someone and they say it's a chicken egg, I can just as readily ask them to prove it.& How do they know?& However, let's go a step farther.& Suppose that we could genetically modify a duck to lay chicken eggs.& Would you now call them duck eggs?& This is precisely what is currently being experimented with in producing human milk in cows.& Is it cow milk or human milk?In short, the creature that produces it is not the determining factor in what is being produced.
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/08/13 | 11:25 AM
keiths (not verified) | 04/08/13 | 13:01 PM
keiths (not verified) | 04/11/13 | 17:04 PM
keiths (not verified) | 04/11/13 | 17:46 PM
Well, according to this 2008
the egg came conclusively before the chicken and what we should really be asking here, is which came first the dinosaur or the egg?
A rare fossilized dinosaur nest helps answer the conundrum of which came
first, the chicken or the egg, two paleontologists say. The small carnivorous dinosaur sat over her nest of eggs some 77 million
years ago, along a sandy river beach. When water levels rose, Mom seems
to have fled, leaving the unhatched offspring. Researchers have now studied the fossil nest and at least five partial
"Some characteristics of the nest are shared with birds, and our
analysis can tell us how far back in time these features, such as
brooding, nest building, and eggs with a pointed end, evolved — partial
answers to the old question of which came first, the chicken or the
egg," said researcher Francois Therrien, curator of dinosaur
paleoecology at the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Alberta, Canada.
The answer?
Well, it’s still unclear whether chicken eggs or chickens came first
(the intended question in the original riddle), said Darla Zelenitsky, a
paleontologist of the University of Calgary in Alberta who was the
first scientist to closely analyze the dinosaur nest.
But interpreted literally, the answer to the riddle is clear. Dinosaurs
were forming bird-like nests and laying bird-like eggs long before birds
(including chickens) evolved from dinosaurs.
"The egg came before the chicken," Zelenitsky said. "Chickens evolved
well after the meat-eating dinosaurs that laid these eggs."
So the original riddle might now be rephrased: Which came first, the
dinosaur or the egg?But then the article goes on to say :-
The analysis also suggests the dinosaur laid its eggs two at a time on
the sloping sides of the mound. That's unlike, say, crocodiles, which
lay all their eggs at once, and more like birds, which lay one egg at a
time. (The ancestors of crocodiles gave rise to dinosaurs and later on,
So this implies to me that we should be asking which came first, the crocodile or the egg?
My 5 min film 'Hidden Dangers for ALS' entry in the AAN #2015Neurofilm Festival is listed no. 22 of 65 entries at
| 04/11/13 | 19:16 PM
keiths (not verified) | 04/11/13 | 19:29 PM
I think that if we want to be proper about it, then the definition of terms [regardless of colloquial language use] would say that(1)& a chicken egg is one that contains a chicken.(2)& an egg laid by a chicken is a chicken's egg.One indicates the species that is developing [or has the potential to develop] while the other describes "output" from the chicken.From a purely biological definition [again, forget what people call things, since they can also routinely be wrong or simply take semantic short-cuts].In isolation, if we simply saw a chicken, we could confidently conclude that it grew from an egg.& There are no exceptions.& So, we would expect to be able to trace it's development backwards until we arrived at an egg [image like a film running backwards].However, if we saw an egg [in isolation] the only way we could determine the species would be to do a DNA analysis [or wait for it to grow up].& So, let's assume that we have and determined that it fits our genetic definition of a chicken.We could NOT conclude that the animal that laid the egg was a chicken, since we already know that there was at least one exception in the proto-chicken.& Therefore, despite the fact that under normal circumstances the logic is completely circular, there is a definitive beginning point for the evolution of chickens, and that chicken derived from the first egg.& [Note, that without knowing anything more specific about that egg [i.e. its history] our only source of information would be the DNA.& If we concluded that a chicken laid it, we would be in error.]
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/11/13 | 19:43 PM
I guess it also depends on how you define an egg. I used to keep chickens and I seem to remember that its quite common for some breeds of chickens to lay shell-less eggs when they first start laying. These eggs just have thick membranes but no shells, maybe that's what the first eggs looked like?
discusses the many possible causes of 'rubber eggs' including vitamin D and/or calcium deficiencies and genetics. Even human babies are held in the womb wrapped in a membrane which the midwives and doctors break to try to induce birth sometimes. My dog once gave birth to puppies that were all fully encased in a rubbery membrane that she then broke and ate along with the placentas. So maybe most animals lay eggs, including mammals and its just the definition of what makes an egg that is questionable? If so then egg coming first seems to be the common theme to me. The first single celled creatures were simply egg like creatures like amoeba, encased in a membrane that divided to reproduce by forming another egg probably.
My 5 min film 'Hidden Dangers for ALS' entry in the AAN #2015Neurofilm Festival is listed no. 22 of 65 entries at
| 04/11/13 | 19:51 PM
Well, let's be more precise in the definition of an egg, then.& It is merely a single cell surrounded by nutrients.& Once it is fertilized then it can develop, but it is simply a single cell.
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/11/13 | 19:57 PM
derek_potter (not verified) | 04/14/13 | 17:57 PM
More evidence for there not being 'turtles all the way down' then. More likely turtles and eggs a long way down then an egg then a non turtle!So somewhere, a long way beneath or before that
below, there is probably the last turtle which is really the first turtle and then there's a non turtle underneath itSo the egg must still have come first :)
My 5 min film 'Hidden Dangers for ALS' entry in the AAN #2015Neurofilm Festival is listed no. 22 of 65 entries at
| 04/15/13 | 01:35 AM
keiths (not verified) | 04/15/13 | 00:54 AM
derek_potter (not verified) | 04/15/13 | 03:23 AM
keiths (not verified) | 04/15/13 | 15:26 PM
BTW ... and this is why an egg laid by a chicken isn't a sufficient criteria to be called a chicken egg.
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/11/13 | 20:03 PM
keiths (not verified) | 04/11/13 | 20:17 PM
It's not an absurd conclusion, any more than presuming that Kleenex means "tissue", or that Googling something is a synonym for searching.& While we can engage in such verbal short-cuts they should never be confused with more formal definitions.& People use all kinds of terms without considering their more formal definitions, so that doesn't mean much of anything and it certainly isn't absurd.Meanings are determined by the way people actually use words.Not necessarily.& Meanings are determined by definitions, which is precisely why every discipline has their own specific terminology and meanings which don't necessarily match up with colloquial use.& Even the use of "chicken" is incorrect except as a generic term, because it doesn't identify the species.& People do the same thing with terms like reindeer and caribou, or words like "germs".One of the most obvious abuses of scientific language is in the term "flu" which people invariably use for all kinds of misleading symptoms [what the hell is a stomach flu?].So, I'm sorry, but language usage, especially in general, is not any criteria.Let's remember that people also use the word chicken to describe a coward.& Do you really want to go there with your example of eggs and shit?
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/11/13 | 20:26 PM
Again, this leads to the absurd conclusion that the eggs we buy in the supermarket are not chicken eggs.If you really want to be precise about it, if the eggs were to be fertilized and allowed to develop and produced chickens, then they are chicken eggs.& No absurdity, no problem.& The fact that such usage simply parallels expectations doesn't change the definitions, because such precision isn't required when one goes grocery shopping.
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/11/13 | 20:55 PM
keiths (not verified) | 04/11/13 | 20:44 PM
Well, first of all there aren't multiple interpretations for those things, so it's not necessary to assign the possessive.& In other words, they are part of the organism, whereas the egg is not.As I said before, all chickens come from eggs, however not all eggs come from chickens.However, if you want to be sarcastic about it, I can think of another use for the term "chickenshit".
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/11/13 | 20:47 PM
keiths (not verified) | 04/11/13 | 21:03 PM
Are you suggesting that the possessive form isn't being used?& Are you really implying that the use of beaver dams is indicating that it is a part of a beaver?& Actually, unless you're referring to a specific beaver, you're simply using the word as an adjective.& As a result, it is merely being used to modify the word "dam".& That's doesn't make it true or accurate, any more than using the world "big" or "green", or anything else.& Following your line of reasoning, what should I make of a chocolate Easter egg?Again, you're simply arguing specific language usage which is irrelevant since it may or may not mean what is said.& It is imprecise.& This is exactly why such imprecise language is not used in scientific and technical fields.Are you suggesting that comments like "over the moon", "flipping out", "going crazy" should be interpreted literally, simply because people use those phrases?& Are we to assume that they have accurate meanings?As I mentioned before.& What is a stomach flu?& What is a germ?& It seems that you're confusing the role of language and it's colloquial usage for communication with providing explicit definitions that can be used for analysis.& It simply isn't true.& Don't believe me?& Tell me that anyone in the public that sees an egg, presuming it to be a chicken egg, sees something else hatching.& Do you think they're going to accept your explanation that it came from a chicken?& Do you think that definition will be held true by them?& Of course not, because that isn't how they were using the term in the first place.& The term as used by the general public is merely an assumption that the eggs they're purchasing would presumably develop into chickens and that they came from chickens.& Nothing more specific than that, so requiring a bit more precision in definitions is hardly absurd.
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/11/13 | 21:12 PM
keiths (not verified) | 04/12/13 | 01:06 AM
No, I'm not.& I've provided explanations, I've provided definitions, I've asked questions [which you've routinely ignored].All for the fact that you want to make something special of individuals that use the word "chicken" as an adjective.& Unless you have something else to offer besides colloquial references or adjectives, I'm really not interested.
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/12/13 | 07:33 AM
keiths (not verified) | 04/12/13 | 11:19 AM
OT:& For some interesting language considerations.Do these two sentences mean the same thing?"I'm worried about Joe running in the park after dark""I'm worried about Joe's running in the park after dark"or these two?
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/11/13 | 21:20 PM
derek_potter (not verified) | 04/12/13 | 12:37 PM
I fully agree.& The only point I was trying to make is that one shouldn't look for such precision when a specific point is being made by examining how colloquial usage operates.
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/12/13 | 13:00 PM
derek_potter (not verified) | 04/12/13 | 13:29 PM
EzJack (not verified) | 04/12/13 | 20:31 PM
BTW, the egg definitely comes first in a chicken omelette :)&
My 5 min film 'Hidden Dangers for ALS' entry in the AAN #2015Neurofilm Festival is listed no. 22 of 65 entries at
| 04/15/13 | 02:15 AM
derek_potter (not verified) | 04/15/13 | 03:32 AM
keiths (not verified) | 04/15/13 | 11:12 AM
No, because your point about the phrase "chicken egg" as somehow being significant because it is in common use is simply wrong.The question is which came FIRST.& Not what occurs in the middle, etc.& Therefore common usage is completely irrelevant.& There can be no "common usage" for a first event.However, rather than spiraling into an endless cycle of counter-arguments, there is only one question that is pertinent.If a proto-chicken lays an egg containing our genetic chicken, is that a chicken egg or not?& If the answer is yes, then the question is answered as has already been expressed and you can see that it isn't dependent on the animal that laid it at all [common usage or not].However, if you would deny that this is a chicken egg, then you've introduced your own absurdity by claiming that an egg containing a chicken isn't a chicken egg.& Take your pick.
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/15/13 | 11:25 AM
keiths (not verified) | 04/15/13 | 14:01 PM
Classic "straw man" argument.& Nothing matters except that first egg.
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/15/13 | 14:08 PM
keiths (not verified) | 04/15/13 | 15:20 PM
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Is it really a problem? I don't think so.All I know is that like my 97 year old grandmother and my 87 year old father, I eat an egg every day, so that is a hell of a lot of eggs that were laid by a hell of a lot of chickens, that we have eaten between us. The current scientific evidence implies that eggs are very good for us, they are nature's vitamin capsule. Everything required to support life and to create a beautiful little chick, with its bright shiny eyes, hard little pink beak, fluffy yellow down and perfect little legs and feet and its lively little personality, is contained in one egg! Just last week scientists are claiming new evidence that the egg white from eggs lowers blood pressure as effectively as some blood pressure pills, with all their known side effects. My late mother had high blood pressure and rarely ate eggs, I wish i had known all this before she died.I personally love keeping free range chickens and think that seeing happy, eager chickens busily rearranging and eating everything in the garden that moves, is a lovely sight, unfortunately my husband doesn't agree :(
My 5 min film 'Hidden Dangers for ALS' entry in the AAN #2015Neurofilm Festival is listed no. 22 of 65 entries at
| 04/15/13 | 17:05 PM
keiths (not verified) | 04/16/13 | 15:47 PM
Mundus vult decipi
| 04/16/13 | 16:21 PM
Take a look at the best of Science 2.0 pages and web applications from around the Internet!
Current Topic:The best writers in science tackle science's hottest topics.