Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Now breaking news on MSNBC

[Motown_Johnny]

They are reporting finding a protein that proves that the chicken came first. Well I think creationists will like this since it means that God created the chicken (and everything else) out of thin air.



I respectfully disagree.


If you are restricting the question only to chickens and chicken eggs then it is clear that the egg came first. The first chicken must have been a mutation from something similar to a chicken but slightly different. This would mean that this other bird laid the egg that contained the first chicken and therefore the egg came first.

Evolution and logic dictates that the egg came first. Creationism and faith dictates that the chicken came first.


This question should be settled, but it seems to have just been made more confusing.

[tridim]

1. Are we talking about today's chickens or the first chicken born from chicken-like parents?

[EOTE]

2. Why does evolution and logic suggest that the egg came first?

Billions of years ago, some single celled creature could have been created by mere chance and it developed the ability to reproduce. Eventually, that single celled organism grows more and more complex until it reaches a particular generation and the creature develops an ability to reproduce sexually as well. Eventually, the creature loses the ability to reproduce asexually. I don't see how that's incongruous with evolution.

[Motown_Johnny]

25. because the first chicken evolved from something that was not a chicken

well, not quite a chicken


so that thing that was not quite a chicken laid an egg that contained the first chicken


therefore the first chicken egg preceded the first chicken

[dmallind]

3. I question your logic (slightly)

The first chicken did indeed hatch from an egg, and an egg laid by something that was very close to but not quite a chicken. But since something else other than a chicken laid that egg is it really a chicken egg? Wouldn't it be a almost-but-not-quite-a-chicken egg?

Obviously eggs came long before chickens, but if we read the question as chicken or chicken egg we need to determine whether an egg is a chicken egg because it contains an embryonic chicken, or because it was laid by a chicken. Since at least vernacular usage uses the layer as an identifier for eggs (I can buy duck eggs or chicken eggs at teh store - none of them contain chickens or ducks) it is arguable that you need a chicken to lay a chicken egg.

[Toucano]

6. I think you've got it.

The chicken had to come first.

The egg is a means of reproduction of the original.

[eShirl]

16. yes, it all comes down to how you define what is a chicken egg

an egg laid by a chicken, or an egg from which a chicken emerges

the definition will answer the question

[DireStrike]

18. I never thought of it that way, but it strikes me as a semantic argument

Eggs bought from the store are bought for taste, nutritional content, and culinary usefulness. And sometimes portability and mess-making capacity. In this instance it makes sense to indentify the egg's "species" by the species of its layer, since that gives information about what the unfertilized egg will be like. I think an egg that exists for the purpose of reproduction is different - the contents are more important and defining than the layer. Or actually, both the layer and the layee are equally important, since they must be compared to answer questions about reproduction - is it a reproduction? If so, how close? If not, why not?

I suppose the egg that was layed by a not-chicken, and from which hatched a chicken, can't be said to be a chicken egg... or else it can be put into some sort of category of First Egg that encompasses all the ideas we're discussing. It would either be an egg of indeterminate species, or the first chicken egg. Which I suppose would also make it Last Not-chicken Egg, under similar arguments. In no case is it solely a chicken egg.... Maybe the chicken really did come first.

[Motown_Johnny]

26. we are now arguing the definition, I see your point but....

IMO if it contains a chicken then it must be a chicken egg



at this point the argument is purely semantic

[dmallind]

29. Oh suire - the argument/joke was always semantic, as eggs obviously predate chickens

It all comes down to how you define a chicken egg.

[eShirl]

32. the chicken egg came before the chicken's egg

lol

[Boojatta]

4. How do you know that an almost-chicken didn't get infected with a virus...

that affected its DNA as in gene therapy?

[The Wielding Truth]

5. I agree with you . There would be a chromosomal change that would

cause a change in the dna at the conception of the chicken inside the egg.

[Toucano]

10. The chromosomal change that would cause a change in the dna at the

conception of the chicken inside the egg still means the chicken came first.

That egg you speak of was not a chicken egg when it was fertilized.

At the moment it was fertilized it became something new - a chicken.

Before that, it was an egg of an "almost-chicken".

[The Wielding Truth]

15. The new chicken creature was however located in the egg. Could the chicken

have developed outside the egg? Oh my, I've crossed the road again? Yes it was the chicken first within the egg prenatal, but at birth it came from the egg.:crazy: You must agree with that.

[Toucano]

17. It hatched from an egg, but it wasn't a chicken egg.

It was an "almost-chicken" egg.

I think the question implies, "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?"

Otherwise, the egg as a concept definitely pre-dates the chicken. No doubt.

So yes, I agree that the first chicken probably hatched from an egg laid by it's non-chicken parent.

But a chicken egg didn't exist until there was a chicken to lay it.

Am I right?

[The Wielding Truth]

19. Yes, but the question always uses the word" egg" not chicken egg.

It's not; " Which came first? The chicken or the chicken egg?". Right? Technically the verbiage complicated it even more. The age old question does not go into prenatal conception in only a chicken egg.

I'm done.. egg or chicken egg.. as long as the chicken became a chicken from a dna change. Then it makes sense to me.

[DireStrike]

20. But it has to, or else the question is not at all interesting.

We can ignore the non-interesting question and focus on the cool one, regardless of what the asker meant to ask.

[The Wielding Truth]

23. Isn't it fun to make yourself dizzy? I'm done now though.

:hi: :silly: :crazy:

[DireStrike]

24. Heheheh. I though I was done with this question.

Now I seem to have changed my mind completely.

[wcast]

7. As soon as I read this, I thought of the song Interview with a vampire by Ras Kass

Ras Kass: Now what came first, the chicken or the egg?
God: Armageddon.
Ras Kass: A arm a leg a leg a arm a head.
Headin in your direction.
The riddle was the answer to the question.
Born of the flesh, what is perfection

Sorry, it is now running through my head.

[LanternWaste]

8. Your objections appear to be based on...

Your objections appear to be based on what someone else *may* infer from the conclusion.

[PufPuf23]

9. If chickens (birds) are today's dinosaurs and

dinosaurs are reptiles, the chicken could have come first because some reptiles lay eggs and other reptiles have live births. Maybe dinosaurs first had live births and then some started laying eggs and having feathers?

[MineralMan]

11. Cluckoraptor came first.

[DireStrike]

21. Perhaps raptor jesus simultaneously laid a chicken egg and created a chicken

Just to fuck with us.

[damntexdem]

12. The reason the question is so wrongheaded is that there is no clear boundary.

Small changes over time lead to massive differences, with declining ability of different lines to interbreed. Even "rapid" evolutionary changes are glacially slow from the perspective of individual organisms.

[meegbear]

13. I go with The Straight Dope answer ...

There are two answers to this question, P., one serious, one retarded. Let's start with the former.

(1) The egg came first. We know that chickens evolved from some earlier, non-chickenoid form of life, e.g., the half-bird, half-reptile Archaeopteryx. These non-chickens, however, arrived in eggs. Ergo, eggs were on the scene before chickens.

(2) The chicken came first because (sigh) the chicken had to get laid before the egg could. Don't say I didn't warn you.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/479/which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg

[Cal33]

14. Do you think at least some creationists would accept

the explanation that God invented and created evolution?

[DireStrike]

22. No, not unless he guided evolution manually and scrunched it up into 5,000 years

Any explanation that leaves room for interpretation - in ways that don't involve god doing magic that for some reason wasn't mentioned in the bible - would be rejected since even one flaw would kill literalism. And then there would be no reason to hate gays, so we can't have that.

[Motown_Johnny]

27. yes, they call it intelligent design

[madamesilverspurs]

28. Settled.

=

[RagAss]

30. LOL !

[vanbean]

31. I agree, but then the egg crossed the road first.