English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-09-07 06:31:47 · 33 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics Biology

33 answers

For the creationist, it was the chicken because God created it full grown.
For the evolutionist, it was the egg, because some dinosaur laid an egg that was more evolved then its mommy, and a chicken hatched from it.
For the Intelligent Designist, it was the blueprint that the designer was working from when he made them both - but it wasn't creation and they didn't evolve...

2006-09-07 06:41:07 · answer #1 · answered by dewcoons 7 · 0 1

The egg came first it was first because thru evolution the chicken grew. The egg has been around for millions of years it some shape or form. Never heard of a fossilized chicken before. But have heard of fossilized eggs. An egg laying animal slowly through time developed into a chicken the egg laying part hardly changed but the rest of its features changed in what today we call a chicken. So it is the egg that came first. If that part of the life cycle works well why change it. If you need better eyes, beak, claws, then change them to suit the needs hence we have whatt looks like a chicken.

2006-09-10 08:54:03 · answer #2 · answered by wandera1970 6 · 0 0

Which came first - the chicken or the egg? "The chicken" came first - in the sentence of the question. If the question is phrased differently, the answer is different.
Reframing the question

It could be said that the question simply requires one to know the context. Most people thinking of the question automatically think of the timeline and it is in this manner that both the previous evolutionary theory and religious teachings contexts arise. Other potential contexts are:

* Having looked through a dictionary from front to back, which came first? - the chicken or the egg?
* When you walked through the supermarket, which came first? - the chicken or the egg?
* When reading the menu, which came first? - the chicken or the egg?

2006-09-09 13:08:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Now a team made up of a geneticist, philosopher and chicken farmer claim to have found an answer. It was the egg.

Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal's life.

Therefore the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg.

Professor John Brookfield, a specialist in evolutionary genetics at the University of Nottingham, told the UK Press Association the pecking order was clear.

The living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken it would develop into, he said.

"Therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg," he added. "So, I would conclude that the egg came first."

The same conclusion was reached by his fellow "eggsperts" Professor David Papineau, of King's College London, and poultry farmer Charles Bourns.

Mr Papineau, an expert in the philosophy of science, agreed that the first chicken came from an egg and that proves there were chicken eggs before chickens.

He told PA people were mistaken if they argued that the mutant egg belonged to the "non-chicken" bird parents.

"I would argue it is a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it," he said.

"If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg."

Bourns, chairman of trade body Great British Chicken, said he was also firmly in the pro-egg camp.

He said: "Eggs were around long before the first chicken arrived. Of course, they may not have been chicken eggs as we see them today, but they were eggs."

The debate, which may come as a relief to those with argumentative relatives, was organized by Disney to promote the release of the film "Chicken Little" on DVD.

2006-09-07 06:43:15 · answer #4 · answered by laksh 3 · 0 1

I think another question is "what came first - two chickens or two eggs?" Because without two eggs, there won't be two chickens to grow up and make new eggs. And without two chickens, how will the egg be created? Unless there's just one egg and it makes twin chickens.

OK, now I've driven myself mad. I think it was one egg that made two chickens. Yeah. That's definitely it.

2006-09-07 06:37:19 · answer #5 · answered by Iknowsomestuff 4 · 0 1

Chicken, but not out of an egg. Life born.

2006-09-07 06:38:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

The chicken came first.

Then the chicken laid an egg.

The egg hatched and from it came a chicken and so here the egg came first.

This little chicken grew up and laid it's own egg, so the chicken came first in this case.

And the cycle repeats.

2006-09-07 06:55:38 · answer #7 · answered by Brenmore 5 · 0 1

Actually a chicken evolved from smaller and less developed birds and therefore the first chicken as we know them today would have come from an egg.

2006-09-07 06:40:06 · answer #8 · answered by zoe g 1 · 0 1

Obviously the chicken had to come first!!(if you know what I mean!!) Other than that the egg as eggs were laid by prehistorc reptiles way before chickens existed!!!!

2006-09-07 06:39:26 · answer #9 · answered by bacardipinapple 2 · 0 1

the egg, because the egg must have been the first of the chicken kind, as darwin's evolution theory states, each is born and the chicken as we know it had to be born if it were to exist

2006-09-07 06:40:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers