Chicken or the Egg - Page 4

I still think the chicken came first with more to add. They did a DNA study and found that female came first - don't know how that would work, but my wife tells me that it is possible for a woman to have child without a male. And it does happen in nature, it is rare though. Ofcourse the child will be a female.

The egg definetly came first - birds evolved from egg laying reptile ancestors.

RAJPAL is right, That's what ive heard in things such as scince shows or scince books, i kinda forget where i first heard it thoguh.

CAPTAIN CYNIC!

When you remember, share it with us please - I'm curious

quote:

---

I still think the chicken came first with more to add. They did a DNA study and found that female came first - don't know how that would work, but my wife tells me that it is possible for a woman to have child without a male. And it does happen in nature, it is rare though. Ofcourse the child will be a female.

---

Okcitykid: what your refering to is known as asexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction doesn't require gametes and therefore the process of meiosis doesn't occur. Sperm is not needed in asexuality. Instead mitosis- cell division occurs. Only very few organisms are asexual. It is rare because, it doesn't produce genetic variation in a population; and for a species population to thrive it must have genetic variation. The reasons why asexual exists is because it is beneficial in some cases.



Yes birds evolved from dinosaurs. Yet, the hypothetical question 'what came first', is actually asking what came first- the animal or reproduction. Well of course the animal came first. As I've already 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). Therefore the chicken came first.

Its Parthenogenesis - my wife told me, she's a science teacher. She's real smart(alick).

It can happen and has, a virgin can have child, but it will be female, it is very rare.

yes thats correct, parthenogenesis is a form of asexual reproduction. Gynogenesis and Hybridogenesis are other forms. Very weird indeed.

it truly amazes me that u thought i was serious.. i really dont care about that evolution dna shit.. when i said that the chicken was already in the egg thus them appearing at the same time i was only joking..

honestly we cant answer that question with 100% accuracy.. therefore i joke.. the question is useless to me

Don't worry analytical29, I speculated your sarcasm. I was refering to 'other' responses in general.

ok well then i apologize for the comment

quote:

---

I overstand fully the uniqueness of the "chicken" and the latter. I also overstand the fact that they are both words. but however no matter how you come about the name, no matter what name you give or do not give the two subjects you'll still come to the same thing. 1+1 will always equal to 2. Why purpose things on evolution when sex is the only way to create things? not sex on a physical term, but the joining of two to make one...what can an egg be joined with to produce an egg??.......

---

This is a good question. Egg + egg = nothing. However, chicken + chicken = egg. Nonetheless, a chicken evolves from an egg, and an egg evolves from chickens. Thus in order for there to be a first egg there must be 2 chickens. If there was just on egg there must also be another egg produced within the lifetime within of that egg for reproduction to occur. So what I am saying is that our clasical definition of a chicken may not be at all. Imagine that one species is (1) another (2) another (3) etc. Then my point is that maybe species 0.9 mates with species 1.2 which gradually becomes what we perceive as 1 but which in actuality is never 1 but say 1.0003 etc., until gradually we have another species, 1.6 but which we define as 2.

What if the egg was evolved and then it hatched a chicken that laid another egg =o?

Wanna know why it doesn't matter either way, that makes no sense.

It really doesn't matter which came first, how is the hen/chicken going to reproduce if it's alone?

Something that was not a chicken laid an egg that then birthed a chicken, thereby making the egg from which this new creature hatched in fact, a chicken egg. At some point, an animal called the chicken emerged, and whatever animal came immediately before it laid the egg that gave rise to the new animal through mutations or a recombination of dna.

From this reasoning I come to the conclusion that it was the egg that came first.