Which came 1st, the chicken or the egg? :D

Chicken
59% (17 votes)
Egg
41% (12 votes)
Total votes: 29

Comments

Losty's picture

The egg - the creature that laid the egg was probably the evolutionary predecessor to the chicken, thus not actually a chicken as we know it today.

---
We are arrant knaves, all: believe none of us.
- Hamlet

What Losty said.

"Books have the same enemies as people: fire, humidity, animals, weather, and their own content." -Paul Valery

Altissimo's picture

What Losty said and Spirithunter agreed with.

Minou's picture

In light of Brighty's post, I voted for the chicken.


No siggie...but this font is blue :D

I personally think the question refers to a chicken egg specifically, rather than eggs in general; therefore I will argue that the chicken came first. The very first chicken was the first bird unable to produce reproductively viable offspring with its evolutionary predecessor. Since the egg that that bird was hatched in was fully formed before its fertilization, and that egg was created without the genetic influence of the father, that egg was not a chicken egg.

~ Ivy
"Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"

Didn't dinosaurs also lay eggs? So technically eggs in general came way before chickens ever did. Just saying. XD

"Books have the same enemies as people: fire, humidity, animals, weather, and their own content." -Paul Valery

The egg comes out of the chicken.

so the chicken came first.

you can't just have an egg like

pop out of thin air...

And now I'm trying to figure out where the h the chicken came from.

"Slow down
we've got time left to be lazy
all the kids have bloomed from babies
into flowers in our eyes

we've got fifty good years
left to spend out in the garden
i don't care to beg your pardon
we should live
until we die." - The Gambler by Fu

The latest thing is that chickens ARE dinosaurs - with the feathers that some dinos had back in the day. Check out chickenosaurs -

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/apr/27-jack-horner.s-plan-bring-dinosau...

Haven't looked at Brighty's link yet, so I reserve my vote until later.

crescentmoon, techno-weenie

Jayfeather X the Stick of Wonder!! --- forever.

Follow your heart… but if your heart doesn't know its way, you're both lost.

"I'm a lizard woman from the dawn of time & this is my wife." – Vastra (Dr. Who/The Snowmen)

Dunno why I didn't think of this quote before... it solves everything XD

"Which came first, the phoenix or the flame?"

"Hmm … What do you think, Harry?" said Luna, looking thoughtful.

"What? Isn't there just a password?"

"Oh no, you've got to answer a question," said Luna.

"What if you get it wrong?"

"Well, you have to wait for somebody who gets it right," said Luna. "That way you learn, you see?"

"Yeah … Trouble is, we can't really afford to wait for anyone else, Luna."

"No, I see what you mean," said Luna seriously. "Well then, I think the answer is that a circle has no beginning."

"Well reasoned," said the voice, and the door swung open.

^
The Harry Potter books knows all. XD *I've read them enough recently that I should know them by heart*

I think it applies the the Chicken vs Egg question as well.

Minou's picture

Thunder: I thought of that immediately, too, but that wasn't a voting option so I based my vote off of Brighty's link. Luna Lovegood rocks XD

As to whether it is eggs in general or specifically a chicken egg, I think that while it's true eggs in general came before chickens, it is implied to be a chicken egg and not just a random egg. Therefore Brighty's link convinces me to vote for the chicken.

Personally I think birds have some relation to dinosaurs, but I would not say they actually ARE dinosaurs. Haven't read Crescent's link yet, though.


No siggie...but this font is blue :D

oh sheet son, it's a tie!

"Slow down
we've got time left to be lazy
all the kids have bloomed from babies
into flowers in our eyes

we've got fifty good years
left to spend out in the garden
i don't care to beg your pardon
we should live
until we die." - The Gambler by Fu

If your christian and believe God created everything ( which I do) the bible never mentions him creating any eggs. :P

...

Not going to reply to that though my inner agnostic begs me too...

Well, in the case that God did create everything, which since I'm a peace-loving agnostic, I have no reason to argue against, the chicken would still come first. I mean, he didn't make an egg, he'd make a fully-grown chicken, right?

~ Ivy
"Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"

My inner agnostic must interject that something a book says is not scientific evidence for an occurence and should not be considered as such

*agrees with Brighty*

Yes, but MY inner agnostic maintains that anything is possible, and should be treated as having the potential but not certainty of truth.

*ducks religious debate*

~ Ivy
"Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"

Well either way, this is an philosophical or a scientific conversation rather than a religious one. In order to be taken seriously, one must present evidence or reasoning to back up a case.

Ivy: If God did create everything, then I think your logic would make sense XD

If you beleive in creation ((which I do)) the chicken came first becuase it was created and then given the ability to produce after it's own kind. But if you beleive in evelution ((like others do)) well... I cannot really answer this question.

all that I'm after is a life full of laughter as long as I'm laughing with you"

life after you. daughtry.

Losty's picture

But to someone who is religious, this is a religious issue. Actually, to someone who believes in anything strongly enough, you start to look at everything through that lens. I mean, recently I realized that I look at even the most unrelated things in a communist perspective.

Anyway. I still don't have a real answer for this question, I guess, since my last post was apparently proven wrong (although I admit I haven't looked at the article...)

---
We are arrant knaves, all: believe none of us.
- Hamlet

Losty: I looked over the link Brighty posted and I guess it made sense, except for where it didn't. I mean, according to the article, the egg can only be created if it's in the chicken, which is understandable (obviously an egg won't be created...er...outside the chicken), but for the chicken to exist it'd have to come from an egg itself. So I'm still unsure but I guess I'd lean more towards your "egg of the evolutionary predecessor".

Losty's picture

Yeah, I just skimmed the article too, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I'll stick to my egg argument, too, lol.

---
We are arrant knaves, all: believe none of us.
- Hamlet

The article's intention isn't to prove where the chicken came from, whether which came first. And because the chicken has proteins nessecary to make the egg it has to be assumed that the egg got the proteins from the chicken.

Losty: If a case has no argument then I will not call it that. There is no basis to it being a religious argument when there is no solid evidence on that side of the case. Philosophy requires reasoning, science requires evidence. Show me a religion that uses solid evidence and I will take back my claim, but with my upbringing in Christanity I firmly believe there is no evidence in the big three religons that make this issue a religious one.

Brighty: Don't those two things go hand in hand, though? Where the chicken comes from should tell us what came first, right?
Well, okay, not completely, because we already know chickens come from eggs and we're trying to figure out which came first, chicken or egg, but uhh...I guess my point is, I was referring to the "chicken or egg" argument when I responded about the article anyway, so um yeah.

Losty's picture

What Daisy said.

Also, I'm saying that religious people look at life through the lens of their religion. Therefore, basically everything is a religious issue to a religious person, even if doesn't seem that way to people who don't agree with them. This is definitely a religious argument to them because it involves the creation and origin of life.

At least, that's what I'm assuming here. I mean, I'm not looking at this from quite the same angle as they are, so I don't know for sure. Maybe Zelf could enlighten us...?

---
We are arrant knaves, all: believe none of us.
- Hamlet

Losty: Although I do agree with Brighty on how solid evidence is better, I understand what you're saying as well; I don't agree with it (since I'm atheist) but I get it XP (if that makes sense)

I just need evidence. You can't believe what the majority does blindly especially when its compared to the rest of the world, Christanity, Islam and Judaism are all fairly new. Life survived for a long time before then.

Losty's picture

I'm not saying I agree with it either, lol, I'm just saying that this is a religious argument to religious people. I definitely don't believe in creationism, lol XD

---
We are arrant knaves, all: believe none of us.
- Hamlet

*gets major headache* This is turning into some deep stuff, but it's quite entertaining. lol.
I'll put in my two cents worth, but feel free to ignore it. XD

I'm raised non denominational Christian, so I do believe in creation and stuff. But I also agree with some facts of evolution. Like for instance... according to the Bible, dinosaurs walked the earth with humans... okay I can get that because every creature was getting along in the beginning, BUT there has been no modern homo sapien remains found in the time of dinosaur fossils.

Some times I think of it like this... Yes all creatures were created in the beginning, but after the whole eating the forbidden apple thing, the creatures followed their instincts more and big dinos took out all the humans and weaker creatures, thus forming the typical Dinosaur era. Then evolution started and brought back humans. *shot for epic failness*

Yeah, I know that doesn't really work, but I prefer not to think about such thing most of the time to avoid a major headache. XD

*Thunders peanut gallery over and out*

PS. (some dinosaurs had feathers and all of them laid eggs, so the chicken we know today is a decedent of the feathers dinosaurs)

.... I've had too much sugar O_o

I just try my best to believe what the facts show is right when it comes to science. I believe there is a possible god of some sort though I'd prefer it to be the Hindu or Buddhist god. If I were to choose a religion it would end up being taoism .I just believe in the big bang theory, evolution, survival of the fittest, extinction of the dinosaurs, cladographs and the like

Losty's picture

There is no god/divine deity in Buddhism.

But yeah, I agree I believe in all of that, too - the big bang theory and evolution and the like. I was just saying that... they don't, basically, lol.

---
We are arrant knaves, all: believe none of us.
- Hamlet

What about Sidartha?

Losty's picture

He's not a divine being. Becoming enlightened does not mean you become a God in Buddhist teachings.

---
We are arrant knaves, all: believe none of us.
- Hamlet

Buddha is placed as above the gods. Some religious texts claim that he is their teacher. There are different areas of Buddhism, but there are certaintly some that have gods. Just becaus there is not a visible decleration of a main deity to worship does not mean it doesn't exist. Gods simply play a smaller part in Buddhism.

Not to mention, What about the devas or brahmas? They are considered higher forms of beings and in some incorporations, even considered gods. The Buddha was a theist himself.

Losty's picture

Okay, listen. I only know that my father is a Buddhist (Tibetan, if you're wondering) and he said that there is no concept of God in Buddhism. Also, I found a bunch of places on the internet to corroborate this fact. That's it. I'm not a Buddhist, nor am I a Buddhist scholar, I'm just saying what I know from someone who is a Buddhist. If you're talking about any other form of Buddhism, **** if I know anything about it, so I'm withdrawing from this argument.

---
We are arrant knaves, all: believe none of us.
- Hamlet

Well my best friend is a Buddhist but she was never a convert, it was her religion since birth as her parents are Thai. And not only am I fascinated by religions, I also have information from her and teh interwebs to back up my point.
http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/12-devas.shtml
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/305.htm
While Buddhists lack the one principle god that makes religions like Christanity, Islam, or Judaism well known, they do have some minor gods who play a smaller part. I'm not sure whether Buddhism is polytheistic or monist like Hinduism which it is derived from, but I am well aware that the concept of dieties or gods exists in this religion.

Losty's picture

Okay, fine. You win. I'm officially done with this argument because I genuinely just could not possibly care less whether there's a God in Buddhism or not, I actually don't even know why I got into this in the first place.

---
We are arrant knaves, all: believe none of us.
- Hamlet

a circle has no starting point. :D

Rise and rise again until lambs become lions.- Robin Hood

So shy is a good deed in a weary world.- Gene Wilder/Willy Wonka.

Stoneclaw: Yeah; let's just say the Big Bang came first or something (and then after that it was circles) XD