Chicken or the Egg - Page 2

well you can look at it from all three views really. from the evolutionary stand point the egg came first, from the religous stand point the chicken came first. Also a creature could have mutated into a chiken while somewhere else a creature could have laid an egg that would hatch into a chicken therby having both. also from evolution standpoint a creature could have mutated while alive into a chiken. Again from the relgious standpoint the higer power, or whatever could have created the chicken first.

Eliasan: the evolutionary stand point is that the chicken came first not the egg.

true to an extent but a creature can evolve while its still alive. Therefore possiblly become a chicken before the chickens egg is laid.

quote:

---

a creature can evolve while its still alive. Therefore possiblly become a chicken before the chickens egg is laid.

---

Sorry Eliasan but thats not true.
Individual organisms don't evolve. Populations evolve.
Because individuals in a population vary, some in the population are better able to survive and reproduce in certain environmental conditions. These individuals usually survive and produce more offspring, thus passing their advantageous traits on to the next generation. Over time, the population changes.

Anything is possible!
The Chicken came first.
The Egg came first.
They both came at the same time.
Or there is no chicken or egg because someone ate them.
It is all just a matter of logical opinion in this case.
Much <3

the chicken must have come first because an animal built like that must have a well developed instinct to flee like hell from everything to even live long enough to produce an egg. it had to have been very chicken.

I was thinking on this earlier. To me the question should be which came first reproduction or the egg/chicken. And of course it must be the chicken, or the egg (still gonna be a chicken) else it would not be RE-production, just production in the first instance.

I read yesterday that they have actually proven that the egg did come before the chicken. The have gone back with the aid of some supernatural science and have concluded that the egg was laid from what was ALMOST a chicken. When it hatched there first chicken was born.

quote:

---

have gone back with the aid of some supernatural science and have concluded that the egg was laid from what was ALMOST a chicken

---

The idea that it encompasses a supernatural reason makes it soo dubious and not credible at all. Anyway, do you have a source?


As much as people find this topic such a confusing philosophical problem, it actually isn't philosophical. The problem only requires a logical answer. And science answers this. As I said chickens (the animal) evolved from DNA mutations which produced the zygote (egg). The function of reproduction occured further down the evolutionary line. Cell division created the first animal, not reproduction (which requires a zygote).

That statement that you quoted me is actually my own words. I read in my local paper that the scientists have a method for dating and so on that they could go back and back to trace back to which animal the chicken evolved from. Thus meaning that the egg came first.

So I presume those scientists have traced back the ancestor or the genetic parent of the chicken. Very interesting.

If I took the question 'which came first the chicken or the egg?' absolutely literally, then the answer is of course the egg came first, because chickens are multicellular reproducing eukaryotes, that can only reproduce through the process of meiosis. Hence development of the chicken can only occur as a result of conception.

However, the way I've taken the question 'which came first the chicken or the egg?'...should be thought as, 'which came first the animal or the egg'. And the answer to that is the animal came first (as explained in my previous post). I'll also just note, that the first animals (which were prokaryotes) reproduced through cell division (mitosis) but absolutely did not reproduce through meiosis (which requires an egg).

You are confusing the matter.

The matter isn't confused, it just depends on how one perceives the question. The question can be taken as either:
1. the chicken came first. OR
2. the animal (ie first life-forms) came first.

You still must take into consideration what came before the animal.
Possibly nothing came before.
Maybe the egg.
Maybe they all came at once.
No matter what I don't think anyone can prove this question right in any way.
Take note that proof to me might not be proof to you.

quote:

---

Why taunt yourself with such a pointless question?

---

One who feebly advocates themself as rather an ignoramus, isn't exactly going to understand, are they. Your question is the very nature of an ignoramus. The chicken/egg task is not pointless. It examines the origin of life. Many people pry for inquisitiveness....for that is a reason why we are here, my friend.