The Chicken or the Egg?
 

the age old question: Which came first?

feel free to discuss. only rule is to respect the replies of others.

__________
I'd say chicken.
without going into religion and God its because you need a chicken to hatch the egg.
But then going by evolution it would be egg. Its not the white shell hard egg that people might think of when asked the question. It might be a soft cellular egg or something but its still an egg nonetheless.
I just confused myself:zomg:

chicken

kthxbai...

Which came first? You or your mother? Without a beginning there can be no end. The end result is the egg; so the beginning is the chicken.


Where did the first chicken come from? Well, you can either say God created animals and allowed the animals to breed and reproduce, providing us with eggs. Or you can say that "nothing" exploded and chickens formed from that explosion.

well I wouldn't say chickens formed from the explosion
the ancestors of the chicken
but those would be single celled organisms
are those still considered chickens then :urweird:

The Chicken or the Egg?
Which came first?
Chicken because the chicken came before the egg in the sentence.:smile:

Exploding chickens... hm...

I'd say the chicken as well. It first evolved from single-celled organisms, evolved into some sort of fish, the fish grew legs and started walking on land. Later for survival purposes it stood on two legs, grew feathers and wings. Then layed the eggs.

LOL!


if you gonna go with theology, it's certain that chicken came 1st...

but we can also say that God created the chickens(and other birds) on their eggs ready for hatching because theres no SPECIFIC/EXACT description on how God created the animals...

and...

Charmander is OWNING the poll! LMAO!!!

need to make a poll with Squirtle now...

Is this supposed to be a serious discussion about abiogenesis and/or evolutionary theory? I would expect so, since this is under mature discussion. I just want to clarify before I take this seriously and get into a discussion about these topics, but the inclusion of whatever a Charmander is in the poll makes me wonder.

LOL!

because Pokemon rule the world at the beginning???

and yeah every mature discussion would be fun with you so share your thoughts...

Let's start with the Big Chicken Bang theory. -nod-

Lol, ahh this old question. Well, creatures were laying eggs long before chickens roamed the Earth, so the egg came first. :p

More on point though, if you go with the whole evolution of the modern chicken deal, then the egg still came first. We could go into a long discussion on it, feel free, but I don't really care to. It's fairly simple to sum up; something close to a chicken laid an egg, then inside the egg genetic mutations occurred resulting in the first true chicken emerging from the egg. The egg was first.

I don't really want to touch the religious aspect of the theories on creation and all that, but keep in mind that even the Catholic Church acknowledges the possibility of evolution's role in the creation process.

Well, the simple answer is that a female sex cell (ovum, or egg) developed long before our modern avian known as a chicken. For the sake of not having another long, drawn out conversation about the origins of life, I'll merely say that evolution doesn't exclude a belief in a higher power. Someone I know made this handy guide, though, for people who wish to argue the point of life developing by evolutionary processes:

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/4...lution2jp3.jpg

An interesting note on evolution is that we tend to think of it as "survival of the best" whereas the original phrase clearly says "survival of the fittest". "Best" ,"fittest" are relative terms because you are the fittest in a given set of conditions. Take Darwin's finches, for example. In a drought where food is scarce, the fittest is the flock of finches with small beaks so they'll survive. Equally, we ourselves may not have been the best possible biological form in the evolutionary tree, but we certainly had the right environmental favours for our survival.

For me, evolution is now akin to evolutionary genetic synthesis. Random combinations of genes, along with environmental factors, create diversity as we know it.

And to conclude, I think the egg came first. LOL

After thinking about it, the rooster probably came first. (If you don't get it kids, ask your parents.)

Actually, if I recall correctly, the term that Darwin uses in On the Origin of the Species is "survival of the most fit." Maybe he uses both. *can't remember* It's a subtle difference but I think it's an important one. An individual doesn't have to be the "fittest" to survive, but only the "most fit" compared to its competitor. @_@;;

Darwin is so careful in writing Origin of the Species because he's well versed in religion himself that he's well aware of the consequences of what he is writing. He's very careful in the terms he uses.

That's why those phrases tend to be avoided when discussing the theory in modern discussions. They're meant to be a sort of handy condensement of the idea, but some take the phrase too literally for it to be of worth. As a great primer for people interested in how the theory works, I suggest reading Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene. It still holds up remarkably well even after all this time. It really walks you through the concepts involved.

my memory might have cheated me again. lol

Charmander came first alphabetically.

It's already been said but what Pritcher said comes closest to what I was going to say.



Probably why Charmander is owning the polls.

but charmander isn't asked in the questions thus chicken would be the right answer in this case :p

It's like asking which grows on trees, apples or strawberries and you answer orange....

A chicken and an egg are lying in bed. The chicken rolls over, lights a cigarette, and says, "Well I guess that answers *that* question..."

kkthxbye

:zomg: But...doesn't that just squish the egg? :urweird:


-Fails to understand Zwivix logic-

It's a pun on the wording in the question.

:sigh: Ivra, you make me look dumb D= :cries:

Plus the chicken and egg on the bed makes no sense. It's what came first, not whats left D= So if both are there, then they were there at the same time :goaway:

o D: :zomg:
i think i just understood that

I...don't think you get it yet.


I'd clarify but this is a PG-13 forum :uhoh:

Clarify in a private message >.< Becuz now I rly feel retarded..

I would explain but I would get another infraction...and I'm pretty sure im close to getting banned...

He's making the same play on words I did about the rooster...but I'm not sure that would help. I'm sure someone has dropped you a PM by now.

Maybe it was a story of love.
There where two totally different animals.
They fell in love.
They made love.
They female hatched two eggs.
One of a female one of a male.
They both carried some characteristics from both parents.
Which made the chicken.
The male and female chicken made more chicks and eventually thats how we have chicken.
:D

Just an FYI -

Although this conversation can take many different avenues, please remember that this is not MoS and all posts should remain mature and relate directly to the topic. All posts not following these guidelines will be moved to MoS, so that the thread is not tainted.

This is not directed towards any particular post, just a reminder, since some posts could be considered "off the beaten path".

Y'know, I never even noticed which section this was in. How is this in any way a mature discussion? It started off with a poll that included Pokemon. That sort of fails that particular litmus test. I'd say this should all be moved to MoS.

It could actually be a philisophical discussion, if it stays on track. Not to mention, even mature discussions need a little humor every now and then to keep things in perspective. As it stands right now, if it stays serious, we will leave it here.

I'm sure if Pikachu had been in the poll, the outcome would have been decided long ago. lol

On topic and to be serious: This is the exact analogy to the mother and the child. The child grows and becomes an adult just like the egg grows into a chicken. We're being caught in a loop, and hence, this age old question.

I'm not a philosopher but I will hazard a guess here:

If we liken the egg to the inchoate form of an idea, then the chicken must be the mature form - the revolution. So in that sense, the egg comes first.

Now when we say "but chicken come from eggs", we are making generalisations while solving a specific problem. Which individual chicken and which eggs? The chicken individual here doesn't come from the egg in consideration. So in temporal position, the chicken must have come first.

Now if we extend the question to the "origin of chicken", no one knows... for sure. The reason is that new researches always overturned common and established beliefs. For example: A while ago, we believed that the flightless birds such as emus and ostriches once shared a common flightless ancestor. A new research suggested the contrary: in fact, each species lost its flight after diverging from ancestors that did have the ability to fly. [source]

Thinking of the Bible, one may argue that God created a pair of rooster and hen in the beginning, and so the chicken population expanded (just like Adam adn Eve, and so, us). But let's not get into the religious aspect of this. lol...

ummm wtf explosion.... wtf? never heard of evolution??? LOL

Yes, I have heard of evolution. However, please explain to me why we stopped evolving? If we evolved from something else, why are we not still evolving? Did "evolution" finally decide humans were perfect and needed no more evolving?

Who said we've stopped evolving?


For all we know, humans in a couple hundred years may be something entirely different from how we know them today.

According to “science” homo sapiens have been around for 400,000 years. If homo sapiens have not evolved in over 400,000 years, I find it hard to believe that in another 100 years or so, we will evolve into something else.

In the scale of things, 400,000 years isn't really any time at all. I'd note that the most rapid development occured relatively recently, before that length of time people lived relatively similar ways of life reducing the need for adaptation.


Why fix what isn't broken :P


I'm not exactly the most knowledgeable about this kind of thing, so I can't exactly spout off what meagre knowledge I've gleaned off textbooks and the odd documentary or two. Only other thing that comes to mind that might be relevant are the changes and ways people's body's have adapted to correspond to the areas in which they live. Not exactly enough to constitute a different 'species' but enough to make a difference all the same. Hair type/ skin-color/ body-structure development etc. that a particular people develops to adapt to the environments they find themselves in.