Which Came First The Chicken Or The Egg?

[joeblogg 0]

Evolke made a good point by saying that it would have to be a chicken and a rooster so that actually changes my mind. i think it was a chicken and a rooster rather than the egg because if the egg hatched there would be just one chicken and no one to mate with. by having a chicken and a rooster then they can produce eggs which will make more eggs. but still both sides of the arguement have faults. maybe there was a chicken and an egg.

[room2593 0]

Oh, I'm so ashamed I post on this forum. This question is irrelevant! Chickens are asexual.

Not really of course, but it would solve this question. It basically boils down to these two hypotheses:

 

If you believe in intelligent design, like I do, then chickens came from an all-powerful, other worldly being who just made all birds in a single day. So the chicken came first. Very simple, very easy.

 

If you believe in evolutionary theory, like so many people seem to, then chickens gradually evolved into their current state, and then out of it again into the next higher life form. Chickens, as a species, kind of seeped into their chickenosity like so much evolutionary jelly. But this doesn't solve our problem yet. Did the egg or the chicken come first? The real question is: When did a chicken deserve to be called a chicken? If we assume that chickens evolved out of dodos or whatever, then at what stage along the gradual, million-year cycle did it cross the line from dodo to chicken? It obviously didn't happen overnight.

I don't think this is a call we are qualified to make. Chickens just are, no matter how they evolved. And eggs or birds, it doesn't really matter, because they've become more and more like chickens after they were "chickens". So neither came first, and neither will come last. They never came.

 

By evolution, it's entirely possible that humans are different from what we were 3,000 years ago when reliable written history began. We just can't tell, because when something changes gradually, you don't call each gradual change a new thing. It's like a growing tree: When does it change from a sapling into a fully grown tree? It doesn't. There is no half-way mark. Organisms that change gradually don't actually have any different definition as they change. And if every life form has changed gradually into a new thing over millions and billions of years, then we're still chickens, aren't we?

[curtis07 0]

The question should be: "Which came first: the chicken or the zygote?" Just to be technical, an egg is only a half-cell. You cannot get a chicken from an egg. You can, however, get a chicken from an egg fertilized by sperm--a zygote. So I voted "chicken" because an egg could not come first.Oh, and OpaQue, the first chicken came before Noah. There was quite a family tree before Noah's chicken. Also, how do you know that Noah didn't have the chicken and rooster on the ark have a zygote together and then kill the chicken for breakfast one rainy morning and just keep the baby chick after it hatched on dry land? Well, do you?!

[asdftheking 1]

Nice try, OpaQue, but where did that chicken come from?

 

On a relevant but different note, how's the theory of intelligent design going for you US folks in terms of it being taught as a "valid" theory in school? Quite frankly it amazes me that the education system let the church get away it. No offence to any of you who do in fact believe in the idea, but I just don't buy it, or even that it could be remotely true. Evidence wins in today's scientific community, which gives evolution an edge over "God created the chicken and the egg..."

I'm afraid if evidence won the theory of evolution would be much further on the decline than it already has been. As the situation stands we have numerous fanatical scientist (and politicians) who dogmatically defend the stitched together theory because they are afraid of the alternative.

 

Oh, I'm so ashamed I post on this forum. This question is irrelevant! Chickens are asexual.

Not really of course, but it would solve this question. It basically boils down to these two hypotheses:

 

If you believe in intelligent design, like I do, then chickens came from an all-powerful, other worldly being who just made all birds in a single day. So the chicken came first. Very simple, very easy.

I was about to post when I saw your reply. I don't need to repeat too much because you said it right on. If you believe that the Bible is entirely correct, and I do, than the chicken came first as a part of a complete, good, flawless creation. Oh that we were still in a "good" world. Now I just wait for creation to be restored to a greater glory than its former glory!

[ahmed1412 0]

I think the chicken came first. But then..... what brought that chicken? maybe it depends on your religion, an atheist will most likely give you a scientific explanation stating whatever evolved into a chicken then laid the egg, while a creationist will probably say God created the chicken which laid the egg, or maybe God created the egg which made the chicken... In anyway you look at it it seems to be the same, no one can know what came first. So i think there is no good answer, but I still think the chicken came fist .

[kobra500 1]

Well evolution isn't really much a theory, it's a fact, it's been proven. When I said don't take my word for it but its been proven as the egg, i actually meant "ITS THE DAMN EGG, PROVEN"

If you believe in intelligent design, like I do, then chickens came from an all-powerful, other worldly being who just made all birds in a single day. So the chicken came first. Very simple, very easy.
If you believe in evolutionary theory, like so many people seem to, then chickens gradually evolved into their current state, and then out of it again into the next higher life form. Chickens, as a species, kind of seeped into their chickenosity like so much evolutionary jelly. But this doesn't solve our problem yet. Did the egg or the chicken come first? The real question is: When did a chicken deserve to be called a chicken? If we assume that chickens evolved out of dodos or whatever, then at what stage along the gradual, million-year cycle did it cross the line from dodo to chicken? It obviously didn't happen overnight.
I don't think this is a call we are qualified to make. Chickens just are, no matter how they evolved. And eggs or birds, it doesn't really matter, because they've become more and more like chickens after they were "chickens". So neither came first, and neither will come last. They never came.

Edited November 16, 2008 by kobra500 (see edit history)

[curtis07 0]

Well evolution isn't really much a theory, it's a fact, it's been proven. When I said don't take my word for it but its been proven as the egg, i actually meant "ITS THE DAMN EGG, PROVEN"

First of all, what are you trying to say? Your sentences are a bit broken and out of order.

 

Secondly, if you are trying to say that evolution is a fact, I adamantly disagree. One cannot PROVE the origin of the universe. This is a fatal flaw in many a "scientist's" thinking. I mean, if evolution is proven, how come it keeps changing? I remember the days when the Big Bang was all the buzz. Now it's whatever you want it to be. If I wanted to believe that life started when two iron atoms collided (never mind where the two atoms came from), the scientific community would applaud my creative thinking and celebrate my membership to the cause. However, as soon as I even whisper the words, "Intelligent Design," I get stones thrown at me from every direction for being a religious fanatic.

 

They are BOTH THEORIES!!!

 

I don't care how much evidence any theory has--it isn't fact. It isn't proven. You can only prove what it's not. And neither evolution nor creation has been disproved. They both have an enormous amount of evidence to back them up, but they are still theories. Evolution may be taught as fact, but let's remember that the scientific community has been wrong before.

 

On a slight tangent, universe origin and morality are very similarly dealt with. Anyone can have his or her own beliefs and will be accepted, unless religion is part of it. Who decided that religion makes people less credible? I would think that people should be able to see that people choose religion based on their own beliefs and do NOT choose beliefs based on their own religion. People weigh religion and find that it is believable, check it against sources, and decide what to do. People weigh beliefs, and make sure their religion is in check with what their true values are. Otherwise, the search begins again.

 

And by the way, I am a creationist. It makes the most sense to me, and evolution seems far-fetched. That's my own opinion. And I'm not a religious fanatic; I weigh the possibilities every time I see a conversation like this. I can see why people would believe in evolution, I just don't believe it myself.

[room2593 0]

Well evolution isn't really much a theory, it's a fact, it's been proven. When I said don't take my word for it but its been proven as the egg, i actually meant "ITS THE DAMN EGG, PROVEN"

When you said "don't take my word for it" I didn't. Show me some of this proof that evolution seems to have. You say that evolution has been proven, but scientists would be calling it "evolutionary law" rather than "evolutionary theory". How do you face that?
I've seen the support of Evolution and I don't believe it. A lot of the famous evolutionary symbols don't actually support evolution. And mutation doesn't actually help creatures evolve, it sterilizes them from mating and passing on their mutation. Sorry, but your evolutionary theory is bunk.

Creation can't be proven infallibly yet, it's true. But it can't be disproved. When you claim something that can't be disproved, then you can't be beaten, no matter how much "evidence" people throw at you. All you have to do is fall back to the issue that can't be disproved. I'm sure you won't be able to understand that concept, but you should try it sometime. Next time you're in an argument, take a really retarded side that can't be disproved. Most of these have the downside that they can't be proven, but no matter. You'll find that you'll either win the argument, or you'll annoy the other person until they blow up.
If you still don't get it, wait for a million years. By then, your brain should have evolved enough to let you understand.

[curtis07 0]

If you still don't get it, wait for a million years. By then, your brain should have evolved enough to let you understand.

Nice.

Anyway, yes, room2593 has a good point (and not just because he's my roommate). Natural mutation has NEVER been shown to IMPROVE anything. The definition of "mutation" as I learned it in high school biology, is pieces of chromosomes switching or getting thrown out during cell division. That means that the end product is only ever <= (less than or equal to) the the beginning amount of DNA. How many more chromosomes do we have than single-cell organisms? (Words "single-cell" may help you out.)

[iGuest 3]

Chicken or the EggWhich Came First The Chicken Or The Egg?

God said to Noah, "Go and get two of every animal, male and female to mate. Bring birds of all kinds and creepy crawlers, but keep them all alive".I'm assuming both chicken and rooster were on board and cinched the deal right there.Everyone has an opinion...Entitled to it

[sknsoftwares 0]

yes yes yes. this question again. which came first? the chicken or the egg.
i'd say the egg first because it seems to make a little more sense but neither of them do when you think about it.

Only god knows the answer well but I think the chicken. As without the chicken it is not possible for an egg to be. Obviously the chicken after came then developed the ability to produce eggs. Thats it what I think but you may differ from me.