I am going to answer this definitively. I hate it when people ask this question like they are smart, or it is really philosophical.
Fossil records show that amphibians laid eggs LONG LONG LONG before the chicken ever existed.
Dinosaurs laid eggs. There were no chickens.
The egg came first.
So next time someone gets smart and asks this question. Look at them like the fool that they are, say 'the egg' and move on like they just asked as dumb of a question as they really just did.
Thank you.
The question implicitly refers to a chicken egg, not just eggs in general.
Then which came first? The egg or the dinosaur?
Somebody has been playing the IPhone App "The Moron Test" lately.
Someone once explained to me that anyone who believes in evolution should believe the egg came first. I remember he explained why and I was convinced but now I don't remember the explanation. :[
Edit: scratch that, the answer is that both came into existence simultaneously because, according to evolution, a species will change due to mutations and natural selection. A chicken egg is only a chicken egg when it contains a chicken, so the first chicken egg was produced by an almost-chicken and held a chicken, thus producing both simultaneously. Unless you want to argue that the chicken didn't come into existence until the egg hatched, in which case the egg came first, but then you're just being silly.
The chicken didn't exist until the egg was laid at the very least. All that was contained in the egg was various proteins early on.
I fail to see how that contradicts what I said :P "both came into existence simultaneously"? I'm no expert on chicken fetuses so I don't know at which point it was actually a chicken - I suppose it had the genetic makeup of a chicken as soon as it was fertilised? I don't know how or when the egg is formed or.. how any of that works to be honest so I'm sure you could be pedantic and argue it one way.
I'm sticking to simultaneous production.
Jim-Dale willed the existence of Chickens and Eggs and they both apparated simultaneously.
After that I willed the existence fried chicken and eggs benedict. It was the next logical step.
i dont think thers an absolute solution, but i have 2 points against egg came 1st
-egg needs genetic material from parents
-egg needs parents, that can take care of egg and finally hatch it
while i cant figure the origins, the only useful approach i can think of are the necessities for a life
To Christians, the chicken came first. i should know :D
First there was a creature I'm gonna call Bob. Bob laid an egg, from said egg a half chicken/half bob creature appeared. Half bob laid another egg, wich hatched into a chicken. The egg was a half bob egg not a chicken egg. The Chicken came first.
Bob didn't come from an egg, it appeared after the fusion and evolution of many many cells (like lichen colonies!). Said cells formed from different mineral combinations. Said minerals come from star dust. Star dust formed after Big Bang.
There was no egg to begin with.
Pretty sure the egg was a chicken egg if there was a chicken in it.
eggs predate mammals, plants have eggs. The OP was of course 100% correct. The only people who should be confused by that questions are creationists, and im surprised they can find the smarts to even get dressed in the morning.
/thread
Nah, i support the ''broiler & omelette came into existence simultaneously''-theory. It just makes more sence to me.
Well, some animal was evolving to be a chicken, and the final evolved version of the chicken hatched out of an egg laid by a chicken-like creature. Does that make sense?
Both are true in their own way.
In one sense, the first chicken (that is, the first animal that would have been able to reproduce with any one of today's chickens, thus qualifying it as being the same species) came from an egg, making the egg the first instance of chickenhood. Obviously speciation is not as clean-cut as that -- a T-rex didn't suddenly pop out a chicken, there would actually have been a slow change and a gradient over time of how much of the population would have been able to breed with a certain amount of today's population -- but you get the idea.
On the other hand, nature didn't define what a chicken is for us, chickens are only chickens when WE define them as such. With that in mind, the discovery and identification of chickens, thus the very beginning of our concept of what a chicken is, would have been done with whole birds, not eggs. It's not as if some bushman picked up a random egg one day and decided he would call whatever came out of it a chicken, we would probably have been aware of the birds first.
I looked out the window and seen his bald head
I ran to the fridge and pulled out an egg
Scoped him with my scopes he had no hair
Launched that shot and he was caught out there
Saw the convertible driving by
Loaded up the slingshot and let one fly
He went for his to find he didn't have one
Put him in check correct with my egg gun
The egg a symbol of life
Go inside your house and bust out your wife
Pulled out the jammy he thought it was a joke
The trigger I pulled his face the yoke
Reached in his pocket took all his cash
Left my man standing with an egg moustache
Suckers they come a dime a dozen
And when I say dozen you know what I'm talking about boyee ^_^
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/t...
There's your answer. At least from a scientific standpoint.
Philosophically... well, I don't think I need to confuse anyone further.
@Thellion The OP wasn't correct at all because, as someone else has already pointed out, the question is talking about a chicken egg in particular. I'm surprised you have the smarts to get dressed in the morning, sir.
You were also wrong about creationists, because the bible explicitly states that God created birds and told them to go forth and recreate (in so many words, too lazy to find the quote).
@Kentard I suppose that explanation depends on one's definition of a chicken egg, but nice find. :]
And all y'all evolution nerds are just copying what I said, psh.
does Jim know he has an alternate gender doppelganger? Was he effing around with portals again?
also: a fetus does not become an identifiable species until some time after its creation. in specific terms, the egg came first, then the chicken. But the chicken was a very close second.
If you're a creationist, the answer is that the chicken came first. Your diety of choice made the chicken, which laid the egg.
If you're an evolutionist, the egg came first. This is massively simplifying the entire process, but the idea is that the first chicken egg was laid by something that was incredibly LIKE a chicken.
If you're an epistemological nihilist like me, I'd say it doesn't matter. We have chickens and eggs, so let's leave it at that.
The concepts of a creator or chickens evolving from something are uncertain in and of itself, given that we haven't witnessed that event ourselves. Even if we did, are our sense data reliable?
also: a fetus does not become an identifiable species until some time after its creation.
Surely its genetic makeup makes it a chicken even if it's not something we'd automatically recognise as a chicken just by looking at it? I'm still going with simultaneous creation.
touche' evilduck, I was simply applying its physical characteristics as to what we perceive as a chicken... but genetically speaking you make a point....
when in doubt, wiki it out
The problem with the wiki is that I always end up clicking link after link until I've got six tabs open and found inspiration for my latest project. And that's a problem because now I have no reason not to go do that project. :[
The egg...
Obviously because the soul of the chicken inside the egg was there before the chicken so the egg.
which came first, the necro, or the bump
(answer: necro)
Apparently, your "typical chicken" is very closely related to the velociraptor, to the point it could be the closest living thing to it. Genetically speakng. Now, while I'm glad we don't have them still running around, isn't evolution supposed to make things "better"?
Actually, the evolution produced people, and more people than 60% of the population are unable to survive themselves, so...
Yep pawns right - the egg hatched the chicken. A dinosaur doesnt turn into a chicken, but his egg may ( idk maybe some crazy mutant dinosaur or something ) also with every new egg the hatchling might become more like a chicken if u wanna talk over time
Techincally, chicks are dinosaurs, so this argument is invalid.
Nothing to see here people, move along.