The fatness or the genes, which came first?

First the egg hatched and a hermaphroditic chicken came out. Its eggs hatched, and generations later, due to some external force(s), the eggs started having genders and roosters and hens emerged …. That’s not right, no! There were two eggs at the first, sex separated, one hatched a hen, and the other a rooster ….

How could it be eggs first? There must have been the hermaphroditic progenitor chicken(s) that later died out as evolution followed. Or perhaps there were the first male and female chickens that started the chicken race. Anyway, what is sure now is that, no hens, no eggs. And, no eggs, no chickens; no roosters, no fried chicken. The chicken or the egg, which should God make first?

This propensity is in the genes, but how did it get there? He got fat by meal and life, which made his genes develop the fatness propensity so that his kids became fat and continued the trend, until one of them stopped it. That isn’t implausible. You are slim, and it’s your genes; I am slim, and it’s my lifestyle and feed—from birth. The journey is worth it.

Earth’s population must have started very small. If we trace our growth back, as with Charles Law in chemistry, we’d get to the point of ‘absolute zero.’ And if the world doesn’t end soon, we’d cross 8 billion. Please Rapture come.

Thoughts whizzing past some heads ….  Be careful what you let settle there. Recall Hitler’s ‘distaste’ for a population and their growth led to the Holocaust. Forced solutions work best with machines, if at all. One must seriously ask if there really is a problem. If so, where it is (it might be within), and whether we’re taking the pure, true and just perspective?

The diversity we see within any race is diverse. And stereotypes exist. Some inheritance/gene based propensities lead to these stereotypes: fat families, tall families etc. Arguably, there might be rich families, and smart families too. Traits are transferable.

Now, given that we grew from no population to about a billion thin people, a billion fat people, a billion neither-tall-nor-short people (random guesses)…. To partly answer for the diversity, it may be that our fathers’ genes developed specific characteristics from the traits they nurtured/developed due to their environment and lifestyle. (Environment includes electromagnetic waves and weather; lifestyle includes diet, activity, and mindset.) Again, the big bones or the genes, which came first?

One thought on “The fatness or the genes, which came first?

  1. The major misunderstanding here is the thinking that eggs are exclusively an avian or bird trait, when fish lay eggs and a human baby grows inside an egg minus the shell which is retained in the womb of the mother and expelled when it “hatches” (the water breaks). The amniotic sac a baby grows in is anatomically identical to an egg lining and contains things like a yolk sac. We also have the genes for making yolk protein but they’re deactivated in humans. The fact is species were laying eggs hundreds of millions of years before the first chickens or birds or dinosaurs or reptiles or amphibians or land creatures even existed, and living things began as fertilized “egg” cells hundreds of millions of years before that.

    As for the hitler thing, a bit of an oversimplification, don’t you think?

    As for population control the population of the world tripled in the 50 years between 1950 and 2000, if that rate of growth had been constant for even a short time we’d be drowning in people now. The population size of any species including humans is limited by natural resources, food, water, land area available, and the death rate. The sudden growth in modern centuries is due to a severe drop in things that kill us like disease, pregnancy complications etc, and a severe increase in things like food preservation and production, both due to technology. But now as ever there is an upper limit to population growth because eventually people will starve and the population can’t get any higher. For most of human history this ceiling was consistently somewhat small.


Comments are closed.