Previous in Forum: Epsilon Erandi - fact or fiction?   Next in Forum: Wanted: Recommendation on 28-30" LCD monitor
Close
Close
Close
Page 1 of 2: « First 1 2 Next > Last »
Guru

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 30°30'N, 97°45'W, Elv: 597 ft.
Posts: 2411
Good Answers: 10

An age old question.

12/25/2007 5:31 PM

Which came first. The Chicken or the Egg.

Now let's be serious for just a moment!

__________________
I never apologize. I'm sorry that's just the way I am.
Register to Reply
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Guru

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1790
Good Answers: 87
#1

Re: An age old question.

12/25/2007 5:43 PM

We usually have eggs for breakfast and chicken for lunch, so in the order of meal service, the egg came first, followed by the chicken a few hours later. But both were delicious.

Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Power-User

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 169
Good Answers: 1
#2

Re: An age old question.

12/25/2007 5:53 PM

The chicken, its parents were not chickens.

Register to Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - Old Salt Hobbies - CNC - New Member United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rosedale, Maryland USA
Posts: 5198
Good Answers: 266
#42
In reply to #2

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 2:51 PM

Yeah but it's parents laid the egg it came from.

__________________
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving in a pretty, pristine body but rather to come sliding in sideways, all used up and exclaiming, "Wow, what a ride!"
Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 169
Good Answers: 1
#3

Re: An age old question.

12/25/2007 6:00 PM

The more I think about this, I say the egg. Laying eggs is not unique to chickens.

Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia.
Posts: 1642
Good Answers: 81
#4

Re: An age old question.

12/25/2007 6:34 PM

Its hard visualise, looking at evolution, how anything evolved as an egg laying creature, or any living think if it comes to that. So if we accept that different life forms evolved then some creature or lizard evolved into a chicken, therefore I would vote for the chicken coming first. Some one should have told it about Xmas it may then have changed it's mind.

Yes cr3 you seem to know all about evolution, you have now seemed to have reached the giddy heights, plenty of knowledge there I hope.

Regards and all the best to evey one for the festive season. JD

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 30°30'N, 97°45'W, Elv: 597 ft.
Posts: 2411
Good Answers: 10
#5
In reply to #4

Re: An age old question.

12/25/2007 6:44 PM

Yes cr3 you seem to know all about evolution, you have now seemed to have reached the giddy heights, plenty of knowledge there I hope.

I do not recall suggesting that I know all about evolution. Giddy heights. Well wow! what a disappointment. Perhaps I expected a more arduous journey or at least better company in travel. Alas, the knowledge up here seems rather rudimentary compared to that of what I had supposed were the 'learned'.

This is a question as old as philosophy itself. I am interested to see what the minds of an engineering forum have to offer.

I, of course, have my own input yet reserved.

cr3

__________________
I never apologize. I'm sorry that's just the way I am.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4514
Good Answers: 88
#6
In reply to #5

Re: An age old question.

12/25/2007 7:56 PM

CR3 writes: "I am interested to see what the minds of an engineering forum have to offer."

Engineering forum. Not many paleobiologists here, but lots of engineers. So how would an engineer answer this question?

Hmmm....

.

.

.

Ah!

Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia.
Posts: 1642
Good Answers: 81
#7
In reply to #5

Re: An age old question.

12/25/2007 8:22 PM

OK not to be taken literally, so what moves an engineer to conceive a seed of an idea that grows or evolves into reality? could it be the can of worms about being preprogrammed, robot chook, or is it just plane necessity?

Regards JD.

Register to Reply
Power-User
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - Validation Specialist-Medical Devices United States - Member - From the Big Apple! Hobbies - Model Rocketry - Rockets should go nuclear! Fans of Old Computers - PDP 11 - Studied computers at W.H.Taft H.S., Bronx, NY. Popular Science - Cosmology - Radio Science Observing

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Miami, FL.
Posts: 304
#8

Re: An age old question.

12/25/2007 8:29 PM

My question is simple...

Did Adam have a belly-button?

__________________
WARNING! All suggestions are informative only. It is the prerogative of the user to implement under his sole responsibility. This commentator will not be liable for any damages or injuries incurred.
Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Alberta Canada
Posts: 182
Good Answers: 9
#54
In reply to #8

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 6:21 PM

Excellent question!

I'm staying away from that can of worms !

__________________
Vote for something useful this time, vote to repeal the second law of thermodynamics!
Register to Reply
Power-User
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - Validation Specialist-Medical Devices United States - Member - From the Big Apple! Hobbies - Model Rocketry - Rockets should go nuclear! Fans of Old Computers - PDP 11 - Studied computers at W.H.Taft H.S., Bronx, NY. Popular Science - Cosmology - Radio Science Observing

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Miami, FL.
Posts: 304
#56
In reply to #54

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 8:03 PM

Very true! This one is like politics and religion, to prove and disprove, to be or not to be...it never ends.

I shy away from these because I do not have a rational , logical or scientific answer or evidence to rely upon!

/:€ ...this looks like another myth; "Busted"!

∑;}... lets talk about Vampires or Warewolves...! Heh, Heh, Heh...

__________________
WARNING! All suggestions are informative only. It is the prerogative of the user to implement under his sole responsibility. This commentator will not be liable for any damages or injuries incurred.
Register to Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Model Rocketry - New Member

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: East of Seattle, Washington state Republic of the 50 states of America
Posts: 2046
Good Answers: 36
#58
In reply to #8

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 10:04 PM

No he was a GOLEM Made from clay etc. even had a word written on his forehead. Lilith was a whole other can of worms. Consort to the mantronet and Adam's first wife. (think I got the spellings right)

Brad

__________________
(Larrabee's Law) Half of everything you hear in a classroom is crap. Education is figuring out which half is which.
Register to Reply
Active Contributor

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: India
Posts: 11
Good Answers: 1
#9

Re: An age old question.

12/26/2007 1:03 AM

Two non-chicken parents get together and giving rise to the first individual of a new species because of a genetic mutation. "The first chicken have differed from its parents by some genetic change, perhaps a very subtle one, but one which caused this bird to be the first ever to fulfil our criteria for truly being a chicken

Thus the living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken that it would develop into, and thus would itself be a member of the species of chicken.

So its the egg which came first not the chicken

__________________
None of Us is as Smart as All of Us
Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia.
Posts: 1642
Good Answers: 81
#11
In reply to #9

Re: An age old question.

12/26/2007 3:45 AM

I am inclined to agree with you, the genetic mutation you would think would be in the egg? but the difficulty then becomes when did the parent cease being what ever it was and the next generation became a chicken, there are many different breeds of chickens, and breeding can produce many variations, making it difficult to say this breed was the first chicken? so which breed layed the first egg? that became a chicken

Regards JD.

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The Capital City, Cow Hampshire, USA
Posts: 477
Good Answers: 3
#27
In reply to #11

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 5:11 AM

maybe the tranformation to 'chicken' was @ domestication? prior to that it was an asian pheasant?

__________________
If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you've always had!
Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster
#62
In reply to #9

Re: An age old question.

12/28/2007 11:36 AM

I agree that the egg came first. The unfertilized egg was of a non-chicken, and the male "donor" was not a chicken, so the egg would not become a chicken until it was fertilized.

J.B.

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sandy Eggo, Khalifornia US of A
Posts: 469
Good Answers: 1
#101
In reply to #9

Re: An age old question.

12/30/2007 3:25 PM

Wouldn't this mutation need to have another mutation to carry on the mutation with? A chicken and a non chicken might not have been able to carry on the lineage of the mutatuion, but then again if there were a few mutations in each breeding then I guess over a century or two then the chicken population would have risen up to be plentiful. Why hasn't there been any successful breedings between sheep and their handlers?

__________________
Madness takes its toll, please have exact change...
Register to Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Model Rocketry - New Member

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: East of Seattle, Washington state Republic of the 50 states of America
Posts: 2046
Good Answers: 36
#104
In reply to #101

Re: An age old question.

12/30/2007 4:19 PM

Depends on the gamete and the fusion.

A) male gamete mutation.

B) male mutation passed to gamete.

C) female gamete mutation.

D) female mutation passed to gamete.

E) mutation in fusion of gamete.

B & D come from prior A, C, & E. (may be some unique circumstances I'm not aware of. )

Most variation comes from E under normal conditions, C & E can be the greatest change with the least chance of success.

The chances of a post egg mutation surviving and passing the mutation to offspring that survive is slim. (I can't say impossible haven't kept up with genetics).

__________________
(Larrabee's Law) Half of everything you hear in a classroom is crap. Education is figuring out which half is which.
Register to Reply
Guru
United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gone to Alabama with my banjo on my knee...
Posts: 5595
Good Answers: 20
#106
In reply to #101

Re: An age old question.

12/30/2007 4:32 PM

Species are considered to be separate so long as they cannot interbreed. This can be due to genetic factors (such as horse x donkey = mule which is sterile), or physical factors such as oceans or mountain ranges. When two similar species are separated long enough, they are totally differentiated into two species. If they can meet and breed during the interim, you get hybrids which can be sterile like the mule, or exhibit a property called "hybrid vigor" that combines enhancements from both parental lineages making the offspring more likely to survive. None of this is theoretical, all of these have been observed in nature.

__________________
Veni, vidi, video - I came, I saw, I got it on film.
Register to Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Biology - New Member Hobbies - Musician - New Member APIX Pilot Plant Design Project - Member - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member Fans of Old Computers - ZX-81 - New Member

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Centurion, South Africa
Posts: 3921
Good Answers: 97
#10

Re: An age old question.

12/26/2007 1:33 AM

Hi CR3

I think we should first resolve which came first of Butterfly, egg, caterpillar or pupa.

__________________
Never do today what you can put of until tomorrow - Student motto
Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brecksville, OH
Posts: 1607
Good Answers: 18
#45
In reply to #10

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 3:44 PM

OR, WHy did the chicken cross the road?

__________________
"Consensus Science got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?" : Rephrase of Will Rogers Comment
Register to Reply
Guru
United Kingdom - Member - Indeterminate Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In the bothy, 7 chains down the line from Dodman's Lane level crossing, in the nation formerly known as Great Britain. Kettle's on.
Posts: 30406
Good Answers: 819
#128
In reply to #45

Re: An age old question.

01/02/2008 10:21 AM

"Wait. You saw the chicken cross the road with your own eyes! You've got to believe it, Scully."

With apologies to the writers of the X-Files.

__________________
"Did you get my e-mail?" - "The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" - George Bernard Shaw, 1856
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Hobbies - Model Rocketry - New Member

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: East of Seattle, Washington state Republic of the 50 states of America
Posts: 2046
Good Answers: 36
#130
In reply to #128

Re: An age old question.

01/02/2008 3:53 PM

With apologies to the writers of the X-Files.

Don't sweat it, they are on strike. Greedy sods. Moronic entertainment at quality prices.

Brad

__________________
(Larrabee's Law) Half of everything you hear in a classroom is crap. Education is figuring out which half is which.
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 30°30'N, 97°45'W, Elv: 597 ft.
Posts: 2411
Good Answers: 10
#12

Re: An age old question.

12/26/2007 10:07 AM

I find the very nature of the egg, a tough outer containment device to provide an environment for incubation, from which the parent can walk away from very interesting. It is also a great means by which one can extract the early genetic material of the animal without much disruption since it is quite non-invasive. Of course the ichthyologists are aware of the countless variations of the aquatic dwellers. But for arguments sake it could be perceived as an indicator of our land based animals having just that type of origin - aquatic.

So 2 more questions - is there a term for animals that are terra bound? like the terms: aquatic, amphibian or omnivore, carnivore, herbivore

And what do our engineering minded friends think of such creatures a s the Duckbill Platypus.

Yes, yes. Fodder for thought.

__________________
I never apologize. I'm sorry that's just the way I am.
Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster
#16
In reply to #12

Re: An age old question.

12/26/2007 11:37 PM

THIS IS RIDICULOUS DISCUSSION, cr3 try to brain wash u all. Be carefull guys....

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 30°30'N, 97°45'W, Elv: 597 ft.
Posts: 2411
Good Answers: 10
#18
In reply to #16

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 12:43 AM

Now that is simply more credit than I am do.

What powers I must have to brain wash the likes of this forum with a simple, perhaps even rhetorical question of simple good humor and fun discussion. OOOOhhhhhh.....look into my eyes......you are getting very...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

__________________
I never apologize. I'm sorry that's just the way I am.
Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Power-User

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Florida
Posts: 394
Good Answers: 8
#28
In reply to #12

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 5:28 AM

"is there a term for animals that are terra bound? like the terms: aquatic, amphibian or omnivore, carnivore, herbivore"

Most "land based" animals can swim to a greater or lesser extant. They don't like it but they can do it. Even Bovines have a certain amount of buoyancy.

As for the Duckbill Platypus, there we see what happens when you design a living creature by committee.

Merry Christmas,

Orpheuse

__________________
Orpheuse
Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 161
Good Answers: 2
#37
In reply to #28

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 10:34 AM

Most "land based" animals can swim to a greater or lesser extant. They don't like it but they can do it. Even Bovines have a certain amount of buoyancy.

I had a most decidedly "land based" animal that had negative buoyancy, and couldn't swim a lick, no matter how hard she tried, it was a Chinese Pug, ugly but cute.

What is the criteria for being a chicken? Taste? Reminds me of an old BC comic, where the two cavemen see a chicken run by, and they look at each other, one comments that it probably tastes like everything else they have tried.

I vote for the chicken coming first, because, somewhere I remember reading, And God said let there be chickens, and let them be fruitful and multiply, and He looked at them and they were good, very, very good.

Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brecksville, OH
Posts: 1607
Good Answers: 18
#46
In reply to #12

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 3:49 PM

So 2 more questions - is there a term for animals that are terra bound?

(1.) Aren't they called terrestrials?

(2.) Looks like an engineering project put together by a committee of non-engineers.

__________________
"Consensus Science got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?" : Rephrase of Will Rogers Comment
Register to Reply
Guru
United Kingdom - Member - Indeterminate Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In the bothy, 7 chains down the line from Dodman's Lane level crossing, in the nation formerly known as Great Britain. Kettle's on.
Posts: 30406
Good Answers: 819
#129
In reply to #12

Re: An age old question.

01/02/2008 10:23 AM

<....a tough outer containment device to provide an environment for incubation, from which the parent can walk away....>

A house fits that description!

__________________
"Did you get my e-mail?" - "The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" - George Bernard Shaw, 1856
Register to Reply
Commentator

Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 85
Good Answers: 4
#13

Re: An age old question.

12/26/2007 11:16 PM

Both at the same time ... the chicken inside the egg

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Hyderabad, India
Posts: 596
Good Answers: 12
#14

Re: An age old question.

12/26/2007 11:20 PM

It is the EGG. Not that egg you eat or chiken's egg. After formation of elgi; an egg of some creature or bactiria formed. So if you go backwards it is the egg..

For the benefit of CR4 I am putting a bit of a good article that I have read recently:

We are forgetting that we are 10 million year old human race

Since the earliest times of our civilizations, we have innovated, improved and perfected many systems and ideas and developed a huge arsenal of defensive and protective mechanisms to protect our selves from debilitating forces and consolidate our position on earth as the ultimate species of survival. We have walked a long way from the caves to cities and from the primitive worlds to the modern. We are incapable of appreciating this heroic struggle of our ancestors and this story of our stupendous success, because we are disunited and divided on racial, religious or national grounds and are busy with our petty politics for control and conflicts for resources. Many of us tend to take pride for being part of a particular race, nation, or religion, caste or community. We hardly appreciate the fact that we are part of great humankind, a unique form of life in the vast spaces of the gigantic universe.

__________________
Subramanyam
Register to Reply
Participant

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tacoma, Washington
Posts: 3
#15

Re: An age old question.

12/26/2007 11:32 PM

Well if you believe in the good Book (bible) it says. God created all creatures. It says nothing about any eggs.

Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Anonymous Poster
#17
In reply to #15

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 12:24 AM

I believe the good book.

Those of us who believe know the chicken came first. It was created.

Those who subscribe to the theory of evolution believe the egg came first.

Did you notice the difficulty the author was having figuring out how a parent animal could have laid a chicken egg and not been a chicken? It just doesn't make sense unless you adamantly refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a creator. Then you are willing to look the other way and ignore things just to prove your point.

The theory of evolution has serious flaws. Anyone who objectively considers the facts without politically correct evolutionist's pressures will come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution falls far short of explaining observed reality. Mutations are never aditive, always subtractive. The result it always less than the original. This will not cause a new species to emerge, just a flawed member of the original species.

All species adapt to their environment and this is micro evolution, a known fact. However this does not account for the theory of macro evolution, speciation.

Annonymous in Iowa

Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 4)
Commentator

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 98
Good Answers: 3
#19

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 1:13 AM

Thanks to the inquisitor who put this question and gave point to ponder. This is where one has to firm his belief that there is one SUPER POWER, the only one alone has the commond over all, when orders to come into being, it is created. You may name any to him: Elah, Allah, God and Eishware. You will not find end to which came first unless you believe that there is one CREATER AND ANY THING IS POSSIBLE FOR HIM.

Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Commentator
Popular Science - Genetics - India - Member - New Member Popular Science - Biology - Member Technical Fields - Education - New Member Hobbies - Musician - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Delhi - India
Posts: 77
#20

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 1:32 AM

Maybe they both took turns!

Once the chicken is born it takes it time to evolve during its life and, by the time it lays an egg, it is some percentage less chicken and more of an evolved being.

Similarly, the egg too evolves within the shell as the chick forms and hence the new chick is not the same as the parents.

So, I think it is a slow process and each chicken and each egg can be regarded as a seperate stepin evolution. So....

Since eggs are being layed long before birds evolved from reptiles....

I'd say the egg came first

__________________
Whenever I find the key to success, someone changes the lock
Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 30°30'N, 97°45'W, Elv: 597 ft.
Posts: 2411
Good Answers: 10
#21
In reply to #20

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 1:41 AM

How many years in the lab to make a hardened placenta that could be extracted as a shell to incubate other animals I wonder. It is interesting that mammals are umbilically bound to parent where others are not. Except for that damn platypus.

__________________
I never apologize. I'm sorry that's just the way I am.
Register to Reply
Associate

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41
Good Answers: 3
#22

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 1:53 AM

I like Mriniy's answer.

Natural selection. The best protected chickens live. The ones with the softer coverings get eaten by bugs, predators, etc., until all that is left is the ones born from harder shells.

But I guess it still took a chicken to lay them. But they may have had to evolve into harder shelled eggs.

Register to Reply
Power-User
Hobbies - CNC - New Member

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bronkhorstspruit, Gauteng, South Africa
Posts: 123
Good Answers: 8
#23

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 2:35 AM

How is it possible that after all the years people still debate this question? The answer is simple the EGG came first. All life comes from the CELL and the EGG is nothing but a Cell.

The question should be when did the CELL acquire a SHELL because when we talk about an EGG we actually mean an EGG inside a SHELL. Humans develop from an EGG but we do not have a SHELL and reptiles have soft SHELLS.

Considering this the answer should be simple Everything Develops from EGGS.

The second question is however when did the first thing that came from the EGG start looking like a CHICKEN?

From the idea of diversity it could be that over time many mutations happen and that some of these were able to survive. The ones that did not survive we just do not know about.

Somehow the CHICKEN managed to survive. Just think how little brain the ones had that did not survive.

The ONE who designed all these surely must have decided what mutations should stay and what should not to ensure that we can live in an environment that is sustainable.

If we were to design something with today's attitudes towards rights and equalities I doubt if we would have been able to make a food chain (who eats whom?). Furthermore there would have been no diversity for nothing should have superior or inferior qualities compared to the other. What a boring place it would have been.

Its nice to think about these questions anyway, maybe it would bring us back to reality and understand that there is no such things as rights, equality, uniformity, sexlessness and whatever we try to concoct in our strive to be "fair and unbiased".

__________________
Johan van Niekerk
Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Power-User

Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 284
Good Answers: 6
#24

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 3:35 AM

Advanced eggs eventually evolved an efficient device for producing and distributing more eggs. We call it 'Chicken'.

__________________
Constant change is here to stay!
Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 409
Good Answers: 5
#25

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 3:51 AM

tHISALL DEPENDS ON YOUR viewpoint, education- as far as we can perceive, every creature needs a parent/s to provide the genetic material/ blueprint- this is to say that no living creature arisesout of nothing- the question remains- where did the first fully functional parents come from- most so-called mutations are harmful- not to forget that micro evolution in a species is a fact- BUT MACRO EVOLUTION IS NOT!(ie where a tadpole becomes a dinosaur!- or a dog- or a cat. recent research suggests that emfields have an organising effect on dna- I have long thought this- that if God, angels, devils exist, they are em energy- in thr Bible it says God is Light. I would just like a definitive answer to this question- which seems impossible- one has faith in the unproveable, or one has faith in the unproved. I posted this question on Open2 net @ 2 years ago- the answers were evolution biased as you would expect- maybe they're right- but I would prefer to think that we have a maker & goal & purpose in this otherwise useless existence- whether you have thought of it or not, we are just a low animal battling gravity(whatever that is), Murphy's Law, & when we have finally got something to work- Entropy steps in!!.

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 759
Good Answers: 12
#26

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 4:38 AM

Seriously, neither. The egg was in the chicken, and the chicken was in the egg.

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Florida
Posts: 394
Good Answers: 8
#29

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 5:33 AM

The egg came first. An egg begins as undifferentiated protein. Once fertilization begins, just before becoming a blastula the creature inside the egg is a single celled organism. Since all life arose from single celled organisms, then the 'egg' came first.

Orpheuse

__________________
Orpheuse
Register to Reply
Commentator

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Northern NY
Posts: 89
Good Answers: 4
#30

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 6:49 AM

The rooster!

__________________
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: third rock from Sol
Posts: 121
#31

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 6:57 AM

The E.G.G. (Extraterestrial Galactic Go-cart) was a primitive form of alien transport, the Chicken was the first alien visitor to this planet... Nano-Nano!

__________________
I'm not a real engineer, I just play one on TV
Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: third rock from Sol
Posts: 121
#34
In reply to #31

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 7:41 AM

some have referred to the unit 'E.G.G.' as a P.O.D. because within the vehicle was the infamous 'Poultry of Doom'...

now, the next question is: why did the infernal creature cross the galaxy?

__________________
I'm not a real engineer, I just play one on TV
Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster
#36
In reply to #34

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 8:33 AM

To get to the other side! :-)

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sandy Eggo, Khalifornia US of A
Posts: 469
Good Answers: 1
#102
In reply to #31

Re: An age old question.

12/30/2007 3:33 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA, BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA, cough, gasp cough, haaaaaaaaaaaaa. Oxygen, must have oxygen... better. Mork form Ork Nano - Nano right back at you!

__________________
Madness takes its toll, please have exact change...
Register to Reply
Power-User
Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fredericksburg, Virginia USA
Posts: 232
Good Answers: 1
#32

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 7:33 AM

"Shall I weigh in?" asked water buffalo, as he was instantly greeted by a raucous chorus of "NO!!" They had all heard him before on related topics, and his views were well known.

One can't be too serious when discussing such topics, or else we run the risk of causing offense to our neighbor. Keep the discussion light when engaged in pure conjecture. No one really knows which came first, in the empirical sense. We only know what we have chosen to believe. The learning and growth is in the study, not the conclusion.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!! Let's hope it is more prosperous than this one.

__________________
See Bio for signature line........political correctness and insecure people are such a pain-in-the-ass.
Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru
Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member United Kingdom - Member - New Member

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harlow England
Posts: 16499
Good Answers: 662
#95
In reply to #32

Re: An age old question.

12/30/2007 11:16 AM

Hi, WB

You show admirable restraint ...I too stayed out of this for as long as I could!
I think CR3 was being a little mishievious when he posted the thread.

Happy & prosperous New year to you too.

Del

__________________
health warning: These posts may contain traces of nut.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 30°30'N, 97°45'W, Elv: 597 ft.
Posts: 2411
Good Answers: 10
#96
In reply to #95

Re: An age old question.

12/30/2007 11:52 AM

Truth be told I was not. As I often mention, I enjoy revisiting old ideas and concepts (in various forms) with a modern eye (pun for you Del)

My intentions were not to focus on religion or science as an institution. But rather the notions of a slightly different audience than one of strict philosophy to an age old question which bridges the two. And, in fact I feel that there has been a large amount of interesting discourse. I am further impressed with the majority of contributors ability to express themselves in a manner that allows personal beliefs to be challenged without demonstrating some sense of a personal attack upon those in contradiction.

I am quite proud to be associated with this crooked branch. This type of dialougue furthers that sense of pride.

Like my Granpa used to say. "Boy, if you're gonna claim to know the answer, make sure you know the question."

cr3

__________________
I never apologize. I'm sorry that's just the way I am.
Register to Reply
Commentator

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Inverness, Florida
Posts: 84
Good Answers: 3
#108
In reply to #96

Re: An age old question.

12/30/2007 4:59 PM

Thanks for the dialogue and open discussion C_Rummel3. It is easy to sit back and discuss unambiguous topics, but taking on more contested ones is only for the brave.

Del your sharp wit is appreciated, it is almost as sharp as your claws. I hope you have a contented new year.

To all who might find it necessary to ignore such drivel from such a sot as me, also have a happy new year.

BTW Enviroman, notice that I am closer than comfort might allow. We might even be friends and not know it.

Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gone to Alabama with my banjo on my knee...
Posts: 5595
Good Answers: 20
#113
In reply to #108

Re: An age old question.

12/31/2007 11:27 AM

I don't see where I'd be uncomfortable - and yes, I did note that you hold down the other end of the county...I'll bet we COULD be friends, even if we aren't yet now. Do have a good New Year! (presuming you don't mind me telling you what to do, that is...)

__________________
Veni, vidi, video - I came, I saw, I got it on film.
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Commentator

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Inverness, Florida
Posts: 84
Good Answers: 3
#124
In reply to #113

Re: An age old question.

12/31/2007 8:12 PM

Thanks for putting up with my heavy handedness.

See you on 44 sometime.

Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Commentator

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Inverness, Florida
Posts: 84
Good Answers: 3
#33

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 7:36 AM

From the perspective of a small boy, I must say the Emperor's new evolutionary clothes have become the new fashion of the age. Naked. When held up to true unbiased pure scientific thought it unravels. For example, have they truly discovered what the aging process is? Is it genetic? Why would we have a predisposed time allotted to live, if the life struggle to exist was to those who were strongest. Would not life be continually growing longer? How come dogs grow old, grey, feeble, and die before we are even fully developed? Someone set the genetic clocks, that's why.

Register to Reply
Commentator

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Inverness, Florida
Posts: 84
Good Answers: 3
#60
In reply to #33

Re: An age old question.

12/28/2007 7:01 AM

OK, Let's make this simpler.

Both at the same time.

The Eggs were formed inside of the chicken when Created.

BTW Could not an all powerful God capable of creating the universe, create a complete story rich with a complete physical past, much like the great authors of literature build up the past of the characters out of nothing using words?

Something to think about.

Anyone's comments are invited.

PS. Feel free to write me a private mail message if you do not want to discuss this on the public forum.

Register to Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member United Kingdom - Member - New Member

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harlow England
Posts: 16499
Good Answers: 662
#90
In reply to #60

Re: An age old question.

12/30/2007 7:26 AM

BTW Could not an all powerful God capable of creating the universe, create a complete story rich with a complete physical past, much like the great authors of literature build up the past of the characters out of nothing using words?

Something to think about.

Anyone's comments are invited.

Indeed, but it doesn't take very long to think about it at all..
it is such a cop out idea...like a kid ending his essay with 'I woke up and realised it was a dream'.
The concept is intellectually bankrupt as it has no actual argument, logic or reasoning. If you start any discussion presupposing the existence of a creator..then self evidently you can say he has created anything you like..
Your book analogy is extremely good...for indeed that is all the creations stories are.

Del

__________________
health warning: These posts may contain traces of nut.
Register to Reply
Commentator

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Inverness, Florida
Posts: 84
Good Answers: 3
#91
In reply to #90

Re: An age old question.

12/30/2007 7:42 AM

At least in proposing such a theory I do not try to impose it as fact. It perfectly fits my definition of a theory.

I will read the book you mentioned as I obviously have many doubts about things such as EYE evolution, and am willing to discuss others ideas.

The fact that so much emotion comes to the surface about discussing God lends itself to my other supposition that God does exist and built into all his creation is the internal knowledge that He does in fact exist.

So in my meanderings about what is first the chicken or the egg, what is not more scientific than using plausible theories to discuss the options? Yes, I hold an opinion, and I make it clear, not try to hide it underneath a veneer of false pretense as do the authors of the textbooks which academia holds so dear.

Register to Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Cosmology - New Member United States - Member - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 33.49N, 84.19W
Posts: 1476
Good Answers: 3
#35

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 8:01 AM

"Now let's be serious for just a moment!"

Are you serious???

The chicken and the egg arose simultaneously as a direct result of an unstoppable object colliding with an indestructible wall.

-John

__________________
All worthwhile programmers know that constants always vary.
Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK S.Northants
Posts: 485
Good Answers: 19
#38

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 10:54 AM

The answer I liked was if you start from a chicken and go back down the evolutionary branch you will eventually come to something that is not recognizably a chicken. Yet that thing laid eggs, go forward up the branch and you will see a recognizeable chicken which came from an egg. Therefore, the egg came first.

Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster
#39

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 11:09 AM

Well, Im no biologist, it would seem to me that if 2 non-chicken parents produced and fertilized an egg that would become a chicken, then that egg must have came first. I think its safe to envision the "mom" laying the egg which would be half chicken first, then the "dad" coming by and fertilizing the egg, providing the other half of what will become a chicken. I would imagine that now the egg is destined to become a chicken, but there is some, albeit brief, moment of time before the two parents genetic material combines to make said chicken.

Register to Reply
3
Guru
United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gone to Alabama with my banjo on my knee...
Posts: 5595
Good Answers: 20
#40

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 12:09 PM

I concur with Steve S., albeit for a different rationale. The egg came first, as laid by a non-chicken creature. Some change occurred - a mutation, which contrary to what some folks would have you/us believe is NOT always detrimental - and one of the clutches of eggs came out more chicken-like than the parental creature. Over time, this mutation, likely along with others, resulted in a bird better able to survive and procreate than the original stock (natural selection, but it doesn't seem to work as well with people...) and hence we had chickens. Thanks for the fun. Next topic?

__________________
Veni, vidi, video - I came, I saw, I got it on film.
Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 3)
Anonymous Poster
#82
In reply to #40

Re: An age old question.

12/29/2007 10:19 PM

Huh??

Chickens don't survive well at all without help.

Unoverevolved one.

Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aloha or
Posts: 580
Good Answers: 17
#41

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 2:25 PM

-simple-

When you find a chicken that did not come from an egg let us know. Until then all chickens come from eggs so the egg came first.

__________________
Closed biased minds are utterly impervious to any factual evidence which contradicts their beliefs
Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
Hobbies - HAM Radio - CE3AM....4X4SW....CE3NSW

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Santiago Chile.
Posts: 845
Good Answers: 7
#43

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 3:03 PM

CR3 Wrote:

Now let's be serious for just a moment!

Serious? how can you be serious about such a dumb question...

Read the bible:

"And God said: let there be light and there was light,..." and God said: let there be an egg...and there was a chicken..."and so on.

So how dumb can one be questioning the divine creation?... It is all crystal clear.

Wangito.

__________________
Never trade luck for skill.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 30°30'N, 97°45'W, Elv: 597 ft.
Posts: 2411
Good Answers: 10
#47
In reply to #43

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 4:36 PM

First let me make clear how difficult it is for me at times to not hurl a retaliatory remark regarding manners and such.

I have read the Bible. I have read other religious works as well. Those works include Apocryphal writings, Eastern works, Far Eastern Works, Some non-canonized Biblical exclusions, and most recently I spent a few days studying some overlooked Aboriginal works (thank you Del, Del Gato).

I am not an expert. I may have overlooked and probably have overlooked something. So again [wiping blood from bitten tongue] I shall respond with restraint and in part.

Serious? how can you be serious about such a dumb question...

Aristotle (384-322 BC), Plutarch (46-126 AD), Macrobius (395423 AD) are 3 great philosophers. The 3 of them were quite serious about this question. You make it sound as if I thought this up all by myself.

"And God said: let there be light and there was light,..." and God said: let there be an egg...and there was a chicken..."and so on.

Please do be careful when paraphrasing the divine word. It is that very sort of thing that causes great strife, even war in this world. Seems that some proclaimed pious little man sticks his grubby little paws into things then hurls out his reckoning and all hell breaks loose. The Bible does not, as far as I know, include your statement.

So how dumb can one be questioning the divine creation?... It is all crystal clear.

So now you are going to suggest that there is no information or are no historical accounts within the Old Testament that allow for a difficult line of interpretation or reason? I will hope that this sentence will spare me from having to cite off further remarks or examples and that you will see your error.

So in closing; Wangito, I, a believer, ask that you repost your response. Please, a bit of accuracy and some clear language if you do not mind sir.

cr3

__________________
I never apologize. I'm sorry that's just the way I am.
Register to Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - Old Salt Hobbies - CNC - New Member United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rosedale, Maryland USA
Posts: 5198
Good Answers: 266
#44

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 3:23 PM

The egg. If the first chicken's parents were not chickens they both contributed half the DNA to create a off spring that was a chicken. Mutations that took place in the egg produced a bird that was better able to survive in it's environment. Over time and many mutations we have what we call the modern day chicken. These mutations took place in the egg. They were complete to the DNA level prior to the egg hatching. So it was a chicken in the egg.

__________________
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving in a pretty, pristine body but rather to come sliding in sideways, all used up and exclaiming, "Wow, what a ride!"
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 30°30'N, 97°45'W, Elv: 597 ft.
Posts: 2411
Good Answers: 10
#49
In reply to #44

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 4:40 PM

So let us rephrase the question. Which came first; the [reptile, fish, bird, multicellular living animal] chicken or the egg?

cr3

__________________
I never apologize. I'm sorry that's just the way I am.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany 49° 26' N, 7° 46' O
Posts: 1950
Good Answers: 109
#50
In reply to #49

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 4:52 PM

Any cell of this early organism could be an egg.

Only separation from the mother was needed to start a new organism.

So there was no difference between organism and egg.

(Growth was not restricted, differentiation did not exist.)

RHABE

Register to Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - Old Salt Hobbies - CNC - New Member United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rosedale, Maryland USA
Posts: 5198
Good Answers: 266
#53
In reply to #49

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 5:36 PM

The multicellular living thing evolved to use eggs as a means of reproduction.

__________________
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving in a pretty, pristine body but rather to come sliding in sideways, all used up and exclaiming, "Wow, what a ride!"
Register to Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - Old Salt Hobbies - CNC - New Member United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rosedale, Maryland USA
Posts: 5198
Good Answers: 266
#51
In reply to #44

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 5:04 PM

More incite and study to where the chicken came from leads me to change my answer to say nether came first. Since chicken is the name given to the domesticated form of the Red Jungle fowl. Since they are biologically the same bird. I am sure that there where many existing. When the word chicken was first used to distinguish between the two. That there were many domesticated Red Jungle Fowl alive and well when we started to call them chickens.

So the chicken existed upon calling them chickens. Both inside and out side the egg.

__________________
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving in a pretty, pristine body but rather to come sliding in sideways, all used up and exclaiming, "Wow, what a ride!"
Register to Reply
2
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany 49° 26' N, 7° 46' O
Posts: 1950
Good Answers: 109
#48

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 4:38 PM

Try some snake it tastes very alike chicken.

Go back the path of evolution:

dinos had hard shelled eggs,

early amphibeans very likely did have soft shelled eggs,

(what about our early ancestors in permian time the therapodes?)

fish had and have soft shelled eggs,

early aquatic vertebrates had eggs,

early crustacea had eggs (devonian),

mussels, cephalopods and crinoids (silurian, may be cambrian?) had eggs,

are we allowed to set the early "seeds" of plants to be eggs?,

nothing known about the cambrian (r)evolution: large scale multicellular organisms,

precambrian: dividing single cells, may be very early multicellular organims.

The same features that we now try to gain again by genetic engineering: to reconvert cells to the primitive omnipotent stem cells, these features must have been existing in early cells and organisms. Any of the cells could be divided from the "mother" and become a daughter. If fertilised by another organism of the same or similar type (not necessaryly a male one at those times) it had better chances and so bisex was established.

So the origin of the egg and the chicken is the very early eucaryontic cell on the transition to a multicellular organism where the difference between egg and cell is no longer existing.

RHABE

Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru

Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4514
Good Answers: 88
#55
In reply to #48

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 7:03 PM

An unfertilized chicken egg is a single cell.

Register to Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Cosmology - New Member United States - Member - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 33.49N, 84.19W
Posts: 1476
Good Answers: 3
#132
In reply to #48

Re: An age old question.

01/02/2008 7:55 PM

But you know what? Today's [females] actually produce eggs! Yes! Believe it or not, they do. From some of their eggs come forth such as this.

__________________
All worthwhile programmers know that constants always vary.
Register to Reply
Guru
United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gone to Alabama with my banjo on my knee...
Posts: 5595
Good Answers: 20
#133
In reply to #132

Re: An age old question.

01/03/2008 6:34 AM

Hmmm. Maybe extinction isn't so bad after all...

__________________
Veni, vidi, video - I came, I saw, I got it on film.
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 30°30'N, 97°45'W, Elv: 597 ft.
Posts: 2411
Good Answers: 10
#136
In reply to #132

Re: An age old question.

01/03/2008 11:17 AM

Growin' up that man helped raise me (Andy, not Barney. I thought. Uh Oh).

cr3

__________________
I never apologize. I'm sorry that's just the way I am.
Register to Reply
Commentator

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Missouri
Posts: 86
Good Answers: 1
#52

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 5:36 PM

The chicken as all birds have evolved from the dinosaurs, according to the St Louis Science center. So the question becomes: Which came first the dinosaur or the egg.

I would have to believe the dinosaur came first, laying the egg that eventually evolved into the chicken.

Being a God fearing person, I believe in creation. I have always wondered where the dinosaurs come into the picture. I wonder if when God created the earth could the seven days have actually been millions of years and when God created man millions of years had actually passed.

When the Bible was being written alot of it was by hearsay and the early beings would not have been able to conceive time as we now do.

Oh crap!! I think I just busted a blood vessel in my brain. I knew better than try to think.

__________________
I know the rumour is true. I started it and I don't think I would lie.
Register to Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Cosmology - Let's keep knowledge expanding Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors -

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: North America, Earth
Posts: 4384
Good Answers: 104
#57

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 9:44 PM

It's been quite a few years since I debated this question. I never thought I'd see it here!

The chicken wasn't a chicken until it was named. Adam named all of the animals. He pointed to a chicken and said "That is a chicken" (translated from the Adamic language), therefore the chicken came first. Note: When Adam pointed to a chicken egg, he said "That is an egg". At least that is 1 man's opinion.

__________________
“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” - Richard Feynman
Register to Reply
Participant

Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1
#59

Re: An age old question.

12/27/2007 10:14 PM

Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 17, 2007; A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121601900_pf.html

"Now researchers are poised to cross a dramatic barrier: the creation of life forms driven by completely artificial DNA.

Scientists in Maryland have already built the world's first entirely handcrafted chromosome -- a large looping strand of DNA made from scratch in a laboratory, containing all the instructions a microbe needs to live and reproduce."

Therefore, I would have to say the egg.

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sandy Eggo, Khalifornia US of A
Posts: 469
Good Answers: 1
#100
In reply to #59

Re: An age old question.

12/30/2007 3:15 PM

Hmmmmmm, now that is kind of ... disturbing. What are they going to be cooking up with this new method of creation? A new super soldier? I have heard that they have been crossing DNA snips between a fish (I think) and a pig and have come up with meat that is high in Omega 3 fatty acids and low in bad cholesterol... But what are the long term effects of such an action? Change one thing now, something will happen later. Ever read the Dune books? The way they had Sligs ( a cross between pigs and slugs)...

__________________
Madness takes its toll, please have exact change...
Register to Reply
Commentator
Popular Science - Genetics - India - Member - New Member Popular Science - Biology - Member Technical Fields - Education - New Member Hobbies - Musician - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Delhi - India
Posts: 77
#61

Re: An age old question.

12/28/2007 8:53 AM

As far as the hardened shell is concerned, it is secreted while the chicken is laying the egg. It is not hard otherwise. So I guess the hardened egg is just a protective step in evolution. Also the calcium content in its diet affects that. So truly speaking, it is not really a part of the egg. It is a secretion that coats the egg while it is being layed.

__________________
Whenever I find the key to success, someone changes the lock
Register to Reply
Associate

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 29
#63

Re: An age old question.

12/28/2007 11:42 AM

Seriously. Jim Perdue should know the answer! He knows everthing about chickens!

Why'd the duck cross the road? He wanted quackers dummy!

Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: El Lago, Texas, USA
Posts: 2640
Good Answers: 65
#64

Re: An age old question.

12/28/2007 11:50 AM

Obviously the egg. At some point in time there was a near-chicken who, due to environmental pressures and/or random cosmic radiation, laid an egg containing a freakish mutation, which we later found to be delicious.

Not that eggs aren't delicious in their own right.

Register to Reply
Associate

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 29
#65

Re: An age old question.

12/28/2007 11:52 AM

JDKnut knows the only correct answer. JDKnut has solved the problem and turned it from theory to fact. Astounding JDKunt. You've single handily solved the universal question for all eternity!

And I quote: "THE ROOSTER" TAH-DA!

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 759
Good Answers: 12
#66

Re: An age old question.

12/29/2007 5:44 AM

Start with a couple of givens: first, the agreement that human observation and intellect is intrinsically involved in the determination and validity of a "solution"; second, the long-established principle, holding that acquired characteristics are not inherited--subtext: consider the attribution, chicken, to be an acquired characteristic, insofar as the name, chicken, was conferred by human beings and not chickens (other than chicken animations) themselves.

Reason would hold that the egg must have preceded the first chicken or chickens. How can this be so...with confidence? Note that the aforementioned "egg" was not called a "chicken" egg and, indeed, it must not have been--and this not only for the fact that only a chicken can lay a chicken egg! If it is agreed that chicken, per se, must have arisen as the end result of mutations in the genetic material of an earlier species (an intermediate species--an ancestral bird creature--descending from certain dinosaur order or orders as some have already mentioned) it must also be agreed that there must have been a "first" chicken (whether considered singularly or collectively). But if that first chicken was necessary to account for all chickens since--and if that first chicken was the first solely as a result of inheritance of accumulated mutations from a non-chicken (as we know it) forebear, then it follows, that while that first chicken hatched from an egg in like manner as its forebears, the egg from which it hatched was not a chicken egg; but, rather, was a "forebear" egg. It could be said without error that the evolutionary transition "event" giving rise to that first chicken actually happened--this without any choice or imperative by either egg layer or egg "incubant"--in the "non-chicken" egg from which that first, chicken-egg-laying chicken hatched.

It was only after that event--the hatching of a chicken (as so it would be called in due course) from a "whatever" egg--that thereafter, and only thereafter, it would always be the case that any chicken egg must follow a chicken by which that egg was produced and laid.

Now, enough of this and on to another "conun'drum.'" Which came first, the drum or the stick?

Register to Reply
Guru
United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gone to Alabama with my banjo on my knee...
Posts: 5595
Good Answers: 20
#67
In reply to #66

Re: An age old question.

12/29/2007 7:39 AM

While any drummer worth his beat can pound on the bongos with his hands (or beat on the bongos like a chimpanzee, as Marc Knopfler put it), clearly there were trees before there were drums, and as sticks come from trees (and solely so to the best of my knowledge, unless one counts a shrubbery), then sticks must perforce have preceeded drums.

__________________
Veni, vidi, video - I came, I saw, I got it on film.
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 759
Good Answers: 12
#83
In reply to #67

Re: An age old question.

12/29/2007 10:32 PM

Anyone else? About drumsticks and drums, that is? Is there a relationship...with the original question from Rummel?

Register to Reply
Guru
United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gone to Alabama with my banjo on my knee...
Posts: 5595
Good Answers: 20
#92
In reply to #83

Re: An age old question.

12/30/2007 9:04 AM

Well, yes, as a matter of fact - the "chicken" and the "drumstick" would have come at the same time, since that's where drumsticks come from. Excepting that they would not have been called "drumsticks" until after the drum was invented. And further excepting that non-chicken critters (including some dinosaurs) have extremely drumstick-like body parts... I much prefer the thigh to the drumstick, anyway.

__________________
Veni, vidi, video - I came, I saw, I got it on film.
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Popular Science - Cosmology - New Member United States - Member - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 33.49N, 84.19W
Posts: 1476
Good Answers: 3
#68
In reply to #66

Re: An age old question.

12/29/2007 9:43 AM

"it must also be agreed that there must have been a "first" chicken"

But how can we agree that there was, in fact, a "first" chicken since the aforementioned critter was only a "point on an evolutionary line", so to speak. This being the case, will the described dinosaur/fowl still be a chicken 10,000 years from now? I think not! Those folks (assuming they're still around then) may call it a chicken but in all likelihood it will possess quite different characteristics. Who knows, it may even, by then, have evolved into a... dinosaur??? Or, even more bazaar, it may have developed a womb by then! No more "hard-shell" eggs?

Life does find a way, doesn't it?

__________________
All worthwhile programmers know that constants always vary.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 759
Good Answers: 12
#87
In reply to #68

Re: An age old question.

12/30/2007 6:02 AM

"But how can we agree that there was, in fact, a "first" chicken since the aforementioned critter was only a "point on an evolutionary line"..."

The original statement was conditional:

"If [emphasis added] it is agreed that chicken, per se, must have arisen as the end result of mutations in the genetic material of an earlier species...[then]...it must also be agreed that there must have been a "first" chicken (whether considered singularly or collectively)."

Your counterpoint notwithstanding, you seem, albeit reluctantly, to accept the syllogism - ...the agreement regarding a "first" chicken - by describing the chicken (or perhaps its pre-chicken ancestor?) as a "point" (more exactingly, a point of divergence as a species) on an evolutionary line. More fundamentally, we (furthermore) have (already) agreed (by virtue of posting) to ask which...came first; we cannot essay to answer (that is, accept a premise that something came before another) and yet refute that there was a first.

"This being the case [being immaterial]...."will the described dinosaur/fowl still be a chicken 10,000 years from now? I think not!"

I think not as well, but for the reasons that: the "dinosaur/fowl" (either as creature or branch point on an evolutionary tree) was not, itself, a chicken, or chicken-to-be, in its own time; wild-type chickens (in-waiting for domesticated breeding and naming) and extant, (pre-/proto-chicken) dinosaurs/fowls (if any) were genetically isolated; and, as between chickens and their evolutionary, non-chicken progenitor, only the chicken survived/persisted in order to one day be named while extant.

"...folks (assuming they're still around then) may call..." [a 10,000-years-hence chicken descendant] "a chicken but in all likelihood it will possess quite different characteristics."

Any supposition today about what it is that what folks now call "chicken" will be, or will be called, in the future - including, that chickens' future evolution, if any, will involve natural selection - would be iffy at best, perhaps even pointless. But, it would probably be a safer bet than not that, following the comparatively short span of time posited, today's chicken's descendant will differ far less, if at all, from present chicken than present chicken differs from the proto-dinosaur species that gave rise to itself:

  1. By whichever of hundreds of names it is currently called, the destiny of chickens - of their genetic traits - is and for a long time has been greatly if not totally determined by people, and not by nature.
  2. Because chickens have become a major, if not the major, non-marine source of dietary animal protein for human beings around the world, and because this component of human diets continues to increase in supply, it is likely that whatever "evolution" mankind imposes on chickens will be such as to increase the human food supply...with relatively scant consideration for chicken survivability.
  3. In the case of selective chicken breeding for vanity purposes, or for food supply maintenance, it stands to reason that pains will be taken to ensure that the present genetic viability of chickens - their likelihood of producing predictable offspring - will be maintained for any foreseeable future.
  4. On the other hand, mutations which (given enough time and an unmanaged environment) might otherwise give rise to speciation in wild populations will almost invariably prove to to be "fatal" under human management.... Even if reproductively viable, and even if not ostracized (via pecking order) from potential matings, most such chickens will invariably be destroyed and/or consumed.

Moreover, whereas a different potential fate might be argued for chicken wild types, there are better reasons for than against to suppose that, after ten millennia, no (or at most very few) new species (and the need for a name other than chicken) will arise to supplant "chickens" as we already know them:

  1. Since it was presupposed that after 10,000 years human beings will still "be around" (probably in even greater numbers) to give names, it is safe to say that any niches which divergent, wild-type species might otherwise exploit, will continue to be curtailed by human activity.
  2. Known wild types probably no longer exist in sufficient numbers to generate a self-sustaining population of non-chicken off shoots (on an evolutionary tree).
  3. Compared to the time needed for evolution of today's chicken on a branch of proto-dinosaur, 10,000 years would be far too little time...for accumulating reproductively viable mutations sufficient to generate a new species (a self-sustaining, genetically isolated population) of non-chickens-as-we-know-them; ...this even for a primitive animal such as proto-chicken, much less so for an animal already as evolved as a chicken fowl.

So it's probably safer to suppose that the more likely fate of all chickens, in the term of 10,000 years, is that they will persist, for the most part as they already are; or will become extinct. And extinction in any presently foreseeable future seems highly unlikely, even for wild types.

Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member United Kingdom - Member - New Member

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harlow England
Posts: 16499
Good Answers: 662
#69

Re: An age old question.

12/29/2007 2:06 PM

I would suggest you read Climbing Mount Improbable

This explains in a compelling way how some of the stuctures in biology exist in many forms showing a very slow but logical evolution....

Notably the eye.

If the reading of works like this was as 'compulsory' as is the study of the world's various religious texts we would get more balanced debate.

Del

__________________
health warning: These posts may contain traces of nut.
Register to Reply
Guru
United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gone to Alabama with my banjo on my knee...
Posts: 5595
Good Answers: 20
#70
In reply to #69

Re: An age old question.

12/29/2007 2:51 PM

Balance is desirable, but I think pigs will turn green, sprout wings, and fly to the moon before we get that kind of enlightenment in the eddykayshun system.

Geez, I hope I'm wrong about that!

__________________
Veni, vidi, video - I came, I saw, I got it on film.
Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sandy Eggo, Khalifornia US of A
Posts: 469
Good Answers: 1
#99
In reply to #70

Re: An age old question.

12/30/2007 3:06 PM

Damn, green flying pigs... hopefully by then we will have some sort of completely enclosed environment so that we are not up to our waists in pig crap

__________________
Madness takes its toll, please have exact change...
Register to Reply
Guru
United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gone to Alabama with my banjo on my knee...
Posts: 5595
Good Answers: 20
#105
In reply to #99

Re: An age old question.

12/30/2007 4:24 PM

Not to worry, provided they fly to the moon...

__________________
Veni, vidi, video - I came, I saw, I got it on film.
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany 49° 26' N, 7° 46' O
Posts: 1950
Good Answers: 109
#72
In reply to #69

Re: An age old question.

12/29/2007 4:14 PM

Thank you Del for the book title, I will have a look.

There remains the "be careful", degeneration is also existing in biology: the eye of the mammals is much inferior to fish, insects, amphibians, birds and ?

Mammals lost two of the 4 color receptors of the dinos eyes and the focusing and light gathering and color filtering spherical droplets in front of each receptor.

Only recently humans and some apes regained some of the capabilities in duplicating the red gene and shifting the two in wavelength sensitivity one to green and one to red.

"Use it or loose it" is governing the biology on the individual and on the genetic level.

RHABE

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 30°30'N, 97°45'W, Elv: 597 ft.
Posts: 2411
Good Answers: 10
#74
In reply to #69

Re: An age old question.

12/29/2007 5:44 PM

If the reading of works like this was as 'compulsory' as is the study of the world's various religious texts we would get more balanced debate.

This absurd statement has me baffled more than ever. Where have you found religious reading 'compulsory'. I am familiar with your seemingly agnostic position as you have indicated such in the past however it seems that you have a perception that I do not see - imbalance. Is this a matter of perception or am I missing something. (something more than usual)

with respect,

cr3

__________________
I never apologize. I'm sorry that's just the way I am.
Register to Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member United Kingdom - Member - New Member

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harlow England
Posts: 16499
Good Answers: 662
#77
In reply to #74

Re: An age old question.

12/29/2007 6:49 PM

I would have thaught you knew me well enough by now to avoid say things like ..

'This absurd statement'

In the UK Religious Education is (I believe) still a compulsory lesson.

And in my experience this was ploughing through the Bible at junior school. I expect in many moslem countries study of the Koran is compulsory...

A slightly irritated

Del

__________________
health warning: These posts may contain traces of nut.
Register to Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member United Kingdom - Member - New Member

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harlow England
Posts: 16499
Good Answers: 662
#78
In reply to #74

Re: An age old question.

12/29/2007 6:54 PM

Ok... and further more...you presumably have studied the bible...at what age did you start? ..and was it your choice...? If not your choice then the implication is that you were compelled to do it...thus it was compulsory.

And another thing... I'm not a wishy washy agnostic...!

I do not believe in a Deities....

An even furrther irritated

Del

__________________
health warning: These posts may contain traces of nut.
Register to Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member United Kingdom - Member - New Member

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harlow England
Posts: 16499
Good Answers: 662
#79
In reply to #74

Re: An age old question.

12/29/2007 7:04 PM

And even one more thing!!!

If the reading of works like this was as 'compulsory' as is the study of the world's various religious texts we would get more balanced debate.

This is self explanatory..if you care to read it... It proposes the reading of the suggested text (and others) be exactly as compulsory as reading the religious text.

What could be fairer than that?????

If reading the Bible isn't compulsory ..then my proposal wouldn't make reading the suggested text compulsory either !...So what is your gripe?
Or don't you want fair discussion of ideas?

So to sumarise...

Your criticism has no validity whatsoever, appart from that it's fine.

Del

__________________
health warning: These posts may contain traces of nut.
Register to Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Cosmology - New Member United States - Member - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 33.49N, 84.19W
Posts: 1476
Good Answers: 3
#80
In reply to #79

Re: An age old question.

12/29/2007 7:32 PM

Wellllll, here we go again.

When will we ever realize that certain things CANNOT be discussed rationally (I'm not talking about you Del), but there are contributors that, if any mention of anything that connotes a higher power that deviates from their own view, is posted, jump on some religious bandwagon and attempt to make the poster feel like they're damned forever from that post on. Some will even make snide comments alluding to the fact that they feel sorry for you for not accepting their viewpoint.

Philosophically, discussions of a higher power(s) must naturally be discussed as part of normal discourse. However, we must remember to keep it at the philosophical level and not get heated about dissented viewpoints!

I have seen this time and time again on this forum and it really gets old.

Here's a suggestion: If someone posts a religiously fervent comment why don't we, the folks who've been around for awhile, just ignore it and move on?

If one desires to post their view of a supreme being, that's fine but just don't expect everyone that reads it to concur with their ideas. There are too many folks that just cannot accept differing views on topics like "religion", so let's leave it out unless it's genuinely pertinent to a topic. In short, "why can't we just all get along?" -Rodney King.

Debating religion is absolutely un-winnable, regardless which side you're on- John

__________________
All worthwhile programmers know that constants always vary.
Register to Reply
Register to Reply Page 1 of 2: « First 1 2 Next > Last »
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

AbdulWasay (1); agua_doc (2); Anonymous Poster (10); Bayes (7); bhankiii (1); Chazl (1); Cindy Newtron (1); CowAnon (4); Del the cat (7); dovy (1); EnviroMan (15); Ferris (6); Hellcat (2); Hendrik (1); HUX (1); JDknut (1); jdretired (3); Johan van Niekerk (1); Johnjohn (9); kvsubramanyam (1); Mrinny (3); Neil Kwyrer (2); Omnib0mb3r (2); Orpheuse (2); ozzb (4); Pebbles (1); PWSlack (2); RHABE (3); Ron H (1); ronald (3); Self Thinker (6); shooter (1); sidevalveguru (2); silvCrow (1); Snake (1); StandardsGuy (1); Steve S. (1); TexasCharley (17); U V (4); user-deleted-13 (2); vikrant235029 (1); vrbarnett (2); wangito (2); water buffalo (1); who knows (2); Zaphod2Headed (1)

Previous in Forum: Epsilon Erandi - fact or fiction?   Next in Forum: Wanted: Recommendation on 28-30" LCD monitor

Advertisement