Lets Settle This Once and For All, What Came first the chicken or the egg?
- Thread starter aynotes
- Start date
- Messages
- 5,257
- Reaction score
- 97
- Points
- 48
The egg must have came first, because eggs themselves do not evolve, therefore something that was very much like a chicken but wasn't a chicken laid a chicken egg.
1. Define "egg".
What do we call an egg? A unicellular organism that later in life becomes a chicken?
2. Define "chicken".
What do we call a chicken? A multicellular organism that comes from an egg?
3. Specify what an egg is.
Is the egg the white thing laid by a chicken, or is the egg ANY type of egg, like that of a dinosaur? If the latter, the egg came first.
4. Specify what a chicken is.
Is the chicken the animal that comes from an egg laid by another chicken (thus the two chickens are the same), or any egg? If the latter, the chicken came first.
This is all about terminology my friends!
A) What came first, the chicken (animal that came from an egg laid by same type of chicken), or the egg (of that type of chicken)?
In this case, clearly it's hard to answer!
B) What came first, the chicken (the bird) or the egg(any type of egg) ?
Clearly, the egg of the dinosaurs.
C) Lots of other options..
NOTES:
Eggs DO evolve.
Eggs are NOT unicellular. It becomes multicellular as soon as it's fertilized.
What do we call an egg? A unicellular organism that later in life becomes a chicken?
2. Define "chicken".
What do we call a chicken? A multicellular organism that comes from an egg?
3. Specify what an egg is.
Is the egg the white thing laid by a chicken, or is the egg ANY type of egg, like that of a dinosaur? If the latter, the egg came first.
4. Specify what a chicken is.
Is the chicken the animal that comes from an egg laid by another chicken (thus the two chickens are the same), or any egg? If the latter, the chicken came first.
This is all about terminology my friends!
A) What came first, the chicken (animal that came from an egg laid by same type of chicken), or the egg (of that type of chicken)?
In this case, clearly it's hard to answer!
B) What came first, the chicken (the bird) or the egg(any type of egg) ?
Clearly, the egg of the dinosaurs.
C) Lots of other options..
NOTES:
Eggs DO evolve.
Eggs are NOT unicellular. It becomes multicellular as soon as it's fertilized.
The egg is the same as a cell , only a big big cell , so because cells came first , then the egg came first !
actually the egg is formed by many many many cells... that in the end become a chiken.
i mean, you DO realize that the egg that we all eat, is an egg that didn't become a zygote.. so yes, THAT egg is only one cell. but we really are talking about eggs that BECOME chickens, right?
yes.
Domenico
Member
- Messages
- 117
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Question: What Came first the chicken or the egg?
Answer: Egg. Dinosaurs had eggs and there where no chickens around when dinosaurs where around.
Question: What Came first the chicken or the chickens's egg?
Answer: Evolution. The question is like asking what came first in the natural life cycle of a creature.
Answer: Egg. Dinosaurs had eggs and there where no chickens around when dinosaurs where around.
Question: What Came first the chicken or the chickens's egg?
Answer: Evolution. The question is like asking what came first in the natural life cycle of a creature.
YamiKaitou
Member
- Messages
- 636
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Even though I am a Christian, I believe that God is using evolution to make animals. So, I believe that the egg came first.
GG-Xtreme
New Member
- Messages
- 430
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
That makes it sound like the chicken came first, because an egg cannot be considered a chicken egg unless it came from a chicken. But then again, if a chicken must come from a chicken egg, then the egg must have come first. There is no definite line in the evolutionary theory where the chicken or egg 'appears'.
- Messages
- 4,467
- Reaction score
- 95
- Points
- 0
I personnally thougth of the same thing, because everything can be resolved when you just change a bit the perception of things. This was a great example of this method.
Anyway, I have another question: where does life come from, since scientist are able to create cells with everything in them, except life?
Sorry, but this isn't as clever a paradox as you might think.
You asked what came first, the chicken or the egg. You did not say "chicken egg" you just said "egg". And in that case, evolution give a clear answer ... there were eggs LONG before there were chickens.
Then you changed the question to ask whether the chicken or the chicken egg came first. Evolution now provides a different answer. Neither one came first ... they evolved together.
In other words there were eggs + animals hatching from them, LONG before there were chickens. At whatever stage it was that the animal emerging was something we would start to call a "chicken" ... at that point we would call the egg it is emerging from a "chicken egg." No paradox.
Your question is no different from those people who ask "Which came first, men or women?" The answer is that there were males and females, long before there were humans. So at whatever point we would call them "human", at that point we would call the males and females of that species "men" and "women". No paradox.
So it's a trick, yes. The trick is that you apply a word (label) like "chicken" to both an animal and an egg ... and then treat the word and the thing it describes as inseparable. They *can* be separated. The animal that is today a chicken was not always a "chicken." The egg that is today a chicken egg was not always a "chicken egg." The moment you apply the word "chicken" to one of them ... it applies automatically to the other.
But a paradox? No.
You asked what came first, the chicken or the egg. You did not say "chicken egg" you just said "egg". And in that case, evolution give a clear answer ... there were eggs LONG before there were chickens.
Then you changed the question to ask whether the chicken or the chicken egg came first. Evolution now provides a different answer. Neither one came first ... they evolved together.
In other words there were eggs + animals hatching from them, LONG before there were chickens. At whatever stage it was that the animal emerging was something we would start to call a "chicken" ... at that point we would call the egg it is emerging from a "chicken egg." No paradox.
Your question is no different from those people who ask "Which came first, men or women?" The answer is that there were males and females, long before there were humans. So at whatever point we would call them "human", at that point we would call the males and females of that species "men" and "women". No paradox.
So it's a trick, yes. The trick is that you apply a word (label) like "chicken" to both an animal and an egg ... and then treat the word and the thing it describes as inseparable. They *can* be separated. The animal that is today a chicken was not always a "chicken." The egg that is today a chicken egg was not always a "chicken egg." The moment you apply the word "chicken" to one of them ... it applies automatically to the other.
But a paradox? No.
dwd2000
Member
- Messages
- 163
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Without reading everyone's answers, I would have to say the egg.
The question doesn't say it was a chicken egg...just "the egg".
I would have to assume that somewhere along the line, some species fertilized an egg that wasn't theirs. The chicken was created by this act.
The question doesn't say it was a chicken egg...just "the egg".
I would have to assume that somewhere along the line, some species fertilized an egg that wasn't theirs. The chicken was created by this act.
Speciation is a tricky question anyway... i.e., though the rule of thumb that animals of different species can't interbreed works in obvious cases (say, dogs and cats), there is a lot of gray area where animals considered to be different species can nevertheless produce viable offspring (say, cattle and buffalo). So if you are envisioning a string of mutations that eventually produced what we call a chicken, it's a little difficult to say where you'd draw that line.
That said, if you're just going to arbitrarily point to a certain organism and say, "There -- that animal was the first chicken," I'd have to give the edge to the egg it came from. The genetic material of that egg is continuous with the genetic material of the chicken it produced, so that egg has more in common with the chicken it produced than the proto-chicken that laid it.
That said, if you're just going to arbitrarily point to a certain organism and say, "There -- that animal was the first chicken," I'd have to give the edge to the egg it came from. The genetic material of that egg is continuous with the genetic material of the chicken it produced, so that egg has more in common with the chicken it produced than the proto-chicken that laid it.
REBEL21
New Member
- Messages
- 355
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
That is one impossible question no 1 can actually work out completly what came first, but scientists are saying the chicken came first, Through evoloution of a different bird
______________________________________________________________
www.jamiesrebellion.exofire.net
Games, Chat rooms and a lot more.....
______________________________________________________________
www.jamiesrebellion.exofire.net
Games, Chat rooms and a lot more.....
Dazz
New Member
- Messages
- 371
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I was discussing this with my house mate a couple of days ago and she made a very good point which is that at some point of the reproduction process an egg produced by the female which is then fertilized by male in order to have offspring that is with the exception of some asexual creatures that can reproduce without the need for the opposite sex.
You could therefore say that the egg must have come first.
And yeah, she's a bit of a smarta*se :biggrin:
You could therefore say that the egg must have come first.
And yeah, she's a bit of a smarta*se :biggrin:
MadameSkylark
New Member
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
...Life isn't an ingredient
. Life, originally, came from a random combination of chemicals and structures that formed an organism. Life now comes from other life, it doesn't spontaneously generate.