The Chicken Or The Egg?

[dasmeaty 0]

This has probably been posted before, but here goes the age old question... What came first the chicken or the egg or did they both arrive at the same time?Please give a reason for what you think.I think the chicken, and that it just developed over time to give birth in an egg. I just find it hard to believe that an egg could of came into existence from nowhere.

[truefusion 3]

I don't really see why anyone would have trouble with this question, as if a chicken or an egg popping into existence is impossible. The question should be tackled by considering which one would actually survive if either-or were to pop into existence on the earth. In that case, the chicken would have come first.

I think the chicken, [...] I just find it hard to believe that an egg could of came into existence from nowhere.

What would make the chicken any different?

[anwiii 17]

wouldn't it be just as hard to imagine a chicken that came in to existance from nowhere? i am not really following your logic. and if the chicken came first, was it actually a "chicken" when they laid their first egg?

yes, this has already been discussed here. and when i am drunk enough, sometimes i will comment on the 3rd grade questions.....

your answer is simple though. if talking about 1 chicken or 1 egg, then the chicken came first because an egg would actually have to be fertilized which if the egg WAS fertilized, then it infers there was more than just an egg that "came out of nowhere" where if it does hatch, there may be more eggs, but no more chickens.

I just find it hard to believe that an egg could of came into existence from nowhere.

[dasmeaty 0]

I don't really see why anyone would have trouble with this question, as if a chicken or an egg popping into existence is impossible. The question should be tackled by considering which one would actually survive if either-or were to pop into existence on the earth. In that case, the chicken would have come first.

What would make the chicken any different?

I do not think the chicken popped into existence, I believe it is an adaption and that part of it's adaption was to lay eggs. There is still good chance for an egg to survive depending on its location.

[dasmeaty 0]

Hey... this is the high grade! My point was that I don't believe chickens popped into existence from nowhere they would have evolved from bacteria and as a result of natural selection the egg laying chickens would have dominated.However how does something evolve into an egg? It can't according to the current laws of natural selection, so for the egg to come first it must have just entered into existence.My reason is short as I have all these thoughts but they aren't so easy to articulate.

[truefusion 3]

My point was that I don't believe chickens popped into existence from nowhere they would have evolved from bacteria and as a result of natural selection the egg laying chickens would have dominated.

If you can't see a chicken just popping into existence, then neither can you see this universe just popping into existence, in which case you would have no where to start concerning life in general.

[dasmeaty 0]

If you can't see a chicken just popping into existence, then neither can you see this universe just popping into existence, in which case you would have no where to start concerning life in general.

That is just not true, the means of which we think the universe came into existence do not apply to the chicken. There is reason behind the creation of the universe, and we are pretty sure that chickens were not around from the start of the universe. The chances of the universe being created were very small, the chances that chickens were later created from nothing on our planet makes it infinitely times more small. You cannot explain the random appearance of a chicken with the big bang theory, you can explain the random creation of a universe.

[truefusion 3]

That is just not true, the means of which we think the universe came into existence do not apply to the chicken. There is reason behind the creation of the universe, and we are pretty sure that chickens were not around from the start of the universe. The chances of the universe being created were very small, the chances that chickens were later created from nothing on our planet makes it infinitely times more small. You cannot explain the random appearance of a chicken with the big bang theory, you can explain the random creation of a universe.

What is the reason behind this universe? Figuring out how it came to be does not imply why it came to be; while how may imply that there is a why, that why is still uncertain from the how. What then makes the chances of a chicken popping into existence (from nothing) any less than a universe popping into existence (from nothing)? They would be equal in weight, which just leaves you with no basis for asking the question which you have started with, for the chances are as infinitely small as you say they are.

[dasmeaty 0]

The question is not why, it is how. You misunderstood me, I was referring to the chances of the universe being created and then an egg just popping into existence after not as two seperate entities. The major difference is despite the universes creation being wholely unlikely we can explain to an extent how it happened, the same can not be said for the random creation of an egg.My point being that it is far far far more likely that a chicken is an adaption and so is its egg laying as part of natural selection, than it is for it or an egg to have randomly popped into existence.Which question do you refer to as to having no basis? Curiosity is a basis for any question.

[truefusion 3]

The question is not why, it is how. You misunderstood me, I was referring to the chances of the universe being created and then an egg just popping into existence after not as two seperate entities. The major difference is despite the universes creation being wholely unlikely we can explain to an extent how it happened, the same can not be said for the random creation of an egg.

The reason for anything deals with why. I was not referring to the question you bring up for how; i was referring to your statement that mentions about the reason for the universe. And i did retrieve and have understood what was mentioned by you. But the process undergone to bring an egg into this world is seen with any egg-laying creature of this world, so how it was given birth is explainable—the possibility of it coming into existence is therefore just as equal to the possibility of a chicken.

My point being that it is far far far more likely that a chicken is an adaption and so is its egg laying as part of natural selection, than it is for it or an egg to have randomly popped into existence.

Chickens have always been known to lay eggs. If it is the case that they mutated into egg-laying creatures, then you will have to question what kind of chicken you are talking about. In which case you will therefore come to realize that your position really does not conclude the chicken coming first but the egg. So in order to even be able to conclude that the chicken came first, you would have to drop adaption (through natural selection).

Which question do you refer to as to having no basis? Curiosity is a basis for any question.

For this case, i was referring to the one concerning the one in the topic title. And curiosity is not justified in its own right but requires external justification, which is what the question would be justified with in asking.

[dasmeaty 0]

The reason for anything deals with why. I was not referring to the question you bring up for how; i was referring to your statement that mentions about the reason for the universe. And i did retrieve and have understood what was mentioned by you. But the process undergone to bring an egg into this world is seen with any egg-laying creature of this world, so how it was given birth is explainablethe possibility of it coming into existence is therefore just as equal to the possibility of a chicken.

Reason needs no why, there is not always a purpose to an action it just is what it is. If we all descend from bacteria, and no known bacteria lays eggs then the ability to lay eggs must be an adaption, possibly not by the chicken but by its predesesccor. How does something evolve into an egg? It must be the offspring of something.

Chickens have always been known to lay eggs. If it is the case that they mutated into egg-laying creatures, then you will have to question what kind of chicken you are talking about. In which case you will therefore come to realize that your position really does not conclude the chicken coming first but the egg. So in order to even be able to conclude that the chicken came first, you would have to drop adaption (through natural selection).

That does not conclude the egg coming first in any way. Penguins have always been known to have wings, yet very few can fly, why would they have wings if they couldn't fly? Probably because of natural selection. Why do chickens lay eggs? Probably because over time they adapted.

For this case, i was referring to the one concerning the one in the topic title. And curiosity is not justified in its own right but requires external justification, which is what the question would be justified with in asking.

Says who? And what external justification? This doesn't make sense, curiosity alone justifies the asking of a question; If you wish to know something you ask it.

I will say this however it is entirely possible that a chicken descended from an egg laying creature which I didn't think about in my first post.

[gisellebebegirl 0]

I agree with you, i think the chicken came into the world first, and it was probably a variation of dinosaur genes, since dinosaurs did lay eggs..It probably has something to do with evolution, genes and bacteria most likely got relocated and over time based on its environment and lack of males, or some sort of dysfunction on the reproductive system, that made it impossible for the chicks to completely develop inside a chicken's belly made it so the chicken by default just gave birth to eggs, that after taking care of, hatched into little chickens

[truefusion 3]

Reason needs no why, there is not always a purpose to an action it just is what it is. If we all descend from bacteria, and no known bacteria lays eggs then the ability to lay eggs must be an adaption, possibly not by the chicken but by its predesesccor. How does something evolve into an egg? It must be the offspring of something.

Not being able to figure out a reason for something does not imply that it has no reason. And, yeah, suggesting a reason also doesn't mean that the suggested reason is truly the reason for it. But the reason for something always entails a why; and the process of something always entails a how. You can't ask what is the reason for something without receiving an answer that can be given to why; and you can't ask for the process without receiving an answer that can be given to how.

 

By the theory of evolution it has to be the predecessor that laid the egg, to which the chicken came out of. (Following from gisellebebegirl, don't evolutionists state from dinosaur to bird?) However, there has never been a case where a species gave birth to a species other than its own kind. The only way that would happen is if two incompatible creatures mated with each other and by chance alone was the incompatibility disregarded in the process (to where the newborn actually made it out alive and lived a long life—though it may have no one to mate with).

 

That does not conclude the egg coming first in any way. Penguins have always been known to have wings, yet very few can fly, why would they have wings if they couldn't fly? Probably because of natural selection. Why do chickens lay eggs? Probably because over time they adapted.

Your example doesn't relate or follow from what i mentioned. If a penguin has always been known to be incapable of flying, then why would we consider any bird of flight to be a penguin? Because of natural selection? That's non-sequitur. Why do chickens lay eggs? Because they were born with that capability.

 

Says who? And what external justification? This doesn't make sense, curiosity alone justifies the asking of a question; If you wish to know something you ask it.

Curiosity does kill cats. Consider, would you ask a question that shouldn't be asked just because you believe curiosity is self-justifying? Would you ask someone, "Why are you so stupid?" I certainly hope not. How about a question where the answer is obvious? Does curiosity justify the question then? Curiosity does not come out of nowhere, it is a by-product of an external inspirer (though this inspirer need not be conscious). And whether or not this external inspirer itself justifies curiosity is up to the inspirer itself.

[dasmeaty 0]

Not being able to figure out a reason for something does not imply that it has no reason. And, yeah, suggesting a reason also doesn't mean that the suggested reason is truly the reason for it. But the reason for something always entails a why; and the process of something always entails a how. You can't ask what is the reason for something without receiving an answer that can be given to why; and you can't ask for the process without receiving an answer that can be given to how.

Do you believe in a higher power do you think the whether chooses to snow for a reason? You may reason with it to find why it is important to you but not why it does what it does it just does unless you believe a higher power gave it reason or it has the ability to reason for itself.

 

By the theory of evolution it has to be the predecessor that laid the egg, to which the chicken came out of. (Following from gisellebebegirl, don't evolutionists state from dinosaur to bird?) However, there has never been a case where a species gave birth to a species other than its own kind. The only way that would happen is if two incompatible creatures mated with each other and by chance alone was the incompatibility disregarded in the process (to where the newborn actually made it out alive and lived a long life?though it may have no one to mate with).

Nowhere does evolution state this, according to the rules of evolution it is both possible for the chicken to have been born out of an egg (albeit a slow change from one creature to another) or for it to have been born without a shell and developed eg laying abilities.

 

 

Your example doesn't relate or follow from what i mentioned. If a penguin has always been known to be incapable of flying, then why would we consider any bird of flight to be a penguin? Because of natural selection? That's non-sequitur. Why do chickens lay eggs? Because they were born with that capability.

So you are saying penguins never flew, as a fact? Some penguins have been found to be able to fly in recent years, the years not so long before this we considered penguins unable to fly. Chickens have always been known to lay eggs yet how long have we known chickens? Yes chickens might of always laid eggs, but to rule out the possibility of the past on the present is foolish.

 

Curiosity does kill cats. Consider, would you ask a question that shouldn't be asked just because you believe curiosity is self-justifying? Would you ask someone, "Why are you so stupid?" I certainly hope not. How about a question where the answer is obvious? Does curiosity justify the question then? Curiosity does not come out of nowhere, it is a by-product of an external inspirer (though this inspirer need not be conscious). And whether or not this external inspirer itself justifies curiosity is up to the inspirer itself.

Where curiosity comes from is irrelevant, it does not need external justification what makes a man or woman want to discover the unkown? Curiosity, what externally justifies this curiosity when what his curiosity is based on is unkown? His justification is that his discovery may exist, his curiosity as to whether it does. Even so what does internally or externally inspired curiosity have to do with the question?

 

As to asking the question, does the fact that it is rude or ill-mannered unjustify it? If you are curious and stupid enough to ask a stupid person a question in search of a reasonable answer then you are completely justified in doing. What is seen as normal, abnormal, civil or uncivil by others does not mean to say that the question is wrong.

 

If you know the answer to a question and ask it then it may not be justified by curiosity (Teachers do this all the time out of curiosity to see how a pupil responds). My point is that Curiosity justifies a question not that Curiosity is the justification of all questions. I was curious so therefore I asked, there is no deeper reason or justification I need to ask a question.

 

While we are on the matter justification is a human ideal, what is to say that anything needs justification?

[truefusion 3]

Do you believe in a higher power do you think the whether chooses to snow for a reason? You may reason with it to find why it is important to you but not why it does what it does it just does unless you believe a higher power gave it reason or it has the ability to reason for itself.

I would not attempt to reason with the weather and ask it, "Why did you choose to snow today?" It would be more logical to ask God, for example, "Why did you make and allow for the seasons?" For i would not be able to come up with a definite answer on my own.

Nowhere does evolution state this, according to the rules of evolution it is both possible for the chicken to have been born out of an egg (albeit a slow change from one creature to another) or for it to have been born without a shell and developed eg laying abilities.

"This" is ambiguous, but i'll assume you are referring to the part where i mentioned that the egg-laying creature has to come from its predecessor (given the context). You're right, the theory allows for both, being it a world of possibilities. When dealing with possibilities, you may end up with no definite answer. And doesn't this bring us back to my first question? (What would make the chicken any different?) From here on you can choose to admit that the theory of evolution entails a paradox (though paradoxes are ways to show that there is a flaw), try to find some practical solution to the problem (though anything is possible for the theory where time is involved), admit that there was no predecessor to the chicken (though you may have to deal with every other egg-laying creature), or take the easy way out and avoid ever asking the question again.

So you are saying penguins never flew, as a fact? Some penguins have been found to be able to fly in recent years, the years not so long before this we considered penguins unable to fly. Chickens have always been known to lay eggs yet how long have we known chickens? Yes chickens might of always laid eggs, but to rule out the possibility of the past on the present is foolish.

I did say "if." Nevertheless, i highly doubt it would be reasonable to label a penguin that flies as the same kind of creature as those that can't fly, for they are obviously not the same creatures. As mentioned before, if there are two kinds of creatures that are being labeled a "chicken" where only one kind can lay eggs and the other cannot lay eggs, you would have to reconsider your definition for "chicken."

Where curiosity comes from is irrelevant, it does not need external justification what makes a man or woman want to discover the unkown? Curiosity, what externally justifies this curiosity when what his curiosity is based on is unkown? His justification is that his discovery may exist, his curiosity as to whether it does. Even so what does internally or externally inspired curiosity have to do with the question?
As to asking the question, does the fact that it is rude or ill-mannered unjustify it? If you are curious and stupid enough to ask a stupid person a question in search of a reasonable answer then you are completely justified in doing. What is seen as normal, abnormal, civil or uncivil by others does not mean to say that the question is wrong.

If you know the answer to a question and ask it then it may not be justified by curiosity (Teachers do this all the time out of curiosity to see how a pupil responds). My point is that Curiosity justifies a question not that Curiosity is the justification of all questions. I was curious so therefore I asked, there is no deeper reason or justification I need to ask a question.

While we are on the matter justification is a human ideal, what is to say that anything needs justification?

If there is nothing there to spark the person's curiosity, then the person will not be curious. If the person's curiosity is based on the unknown, then the person will not be curious of anything, for curiosity comes from which is known. How can you ask, "What is this?" if "this" refers to nothing? While the question may seek to fill a gap in knowledge, there is always a subject to these kinds of questions where the subject itself is always known. "Known" here does not need to concern the complete knowledge of the subject but realizes at least its existence.

In order to state that anything is right or wrong, you'll require justification. Justification is objective, not subjective. If it were subjective, there would be no way to properly conclude something; reason and logic would be tossed out the window. What needs justification? Anything that wants to be taken seriously.