Funny

13846 readers

2127 users here now

General rules:

Be kind.
All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TheDude@sh.itjust.works

kersploosh@sh.itjust.works

example@reddthat.com

VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.works

841

Just so there's no confusion (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 days ago by cm0002@toast.ooo to c/funny@sh.itjust.works

107 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mech@feddit.org 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

The DNA mutation doesn't happen when the chicken hatches, it happens when the egg is made. So the egg already has the changes that turn it into a chicken egg.

[–] Kacarott@aussie.zone 1 points 19 hours ago

So? This is irrelevant. The question is whether an egg should be "named" after what laid it (ie. A proto chicken egg, which contains a chicken) or if it should be named after what it contains (a chicken egg, laid by a proto chicken).

I see no reason why the default assumption is that it should be named after what it contains. What if the egg was not fertilised and just contains yolk? Should it then be called a yolk egg?