My answer is the chicken either way. It's still a CHICKEN EGG, therefore it's just an under developed CHICKEN. But, then the question becomes, if it was the egg OR the chicken alone, where did MORE chickens come from?
2006-10-21 07:50:55 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I had a feeling this answer was going to get into religion. I don't think I believe in creation solely, or evolution solely. Evolution to some degree CAN be proven, however, it still doesn't take us back to the very beginning, which is why it's still a THEORY. I think, (even though I have difficulty with the belief in Christianity) that a "creator" started the process, but, that's not to say that he didn't start the process of evolution. I don't believe that "God" went *poof* there's a chicken, and *poof* there's a tree. If things were in their first form a complete whole, we wouldn't have growth in ANYTHING. We wouldn't have ever been babies, and oak trees would have never been acorns, ect. So, to this extent, evolution can also be proven.
2006-10-21 11:35:37 · update #1
The chicken or the egg is a reference to the causality dilemma which arises from the expression "which came first, the chicken or the egg?". Since both the chicken and the egg create the other in certain circumstances (a chicken emerges from an egg; an egg is laid by a chicken) it is ambiguous which originally gave rise to the other. Purely logical attempts to resolve the dilemma result in an infinite regress, since an egg was caused by a chicken, which was caused by an egg, etc. Since every chicken originates from its egg, it seems obvious the egg came first. Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal's life. The solution may require an examination of syntax and may rely on verification from advances in modern genetic science. When used in reference to difficult problems of causality, the chicken and egg dilemma is often used to appeal to the futility of debate and lay it to rest.
2006-10-22 04:19:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're obviously not really a scientist, or you wouldn't have pointed out the word THEORY in evolution. Theory is just a word that means explanation. It doesn't imply "not yet proven" as in common language. It's logically impossibe to prove anything in the literal sense. Anyways, to your question, chickens evolved from other animals which laid eggs. So there were eggs before there were chickens, and one day, an egg lain by some similar species hatched a chicken. So the answer is the egg. But then, egg-laying animals evolved from other animals which didn't lay eggs, so which was first, the egg or the egg-laying beast? It would have to be the egg laying beast.
2006-10-24 16:31:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good theory, I think either way all life came from single cell bacteria, so at some point there was neither a chicken nor an egg, and eventually processes evolved so that a strain of sea animal started to lay eggs rather than split cells. So yes, when animals eventually came out of the ocean, they did start to lay eggs, so I would agree, the chicken had to have came first.
2006-10-21 08:41:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The egg: the "prehistoric chicken" (for lack of a better term) laid the EGG that became a chicken. The prehistoric chicken wasn't an actual chicken, only its ancestor -- which was different species. The egg, however, was still an egg, because "egg" isn't a species-specific word. Therefore, the egg came first.
2006-10-21 08:03:22 · answer #4 · answered by pseudonym 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That's one of the problems with the THEORY of evolution. Most theories are dumped after a few years. This one is a fairy tale because some people just don't want to believe there's a creator.
The world and all the zillions of plant and animal life in it are far too infinitely intertwined and co-dependently complex to sustain the evolution theory; all life must have simultaneously appeared as all life forms depend on each other to survive. Cows depend on grass, e-coli depend on mammals, parrots depend of nut trees, etc etc etc. This is all contrary to the evolution theory as evolution can't prove how grass/plants/trees or even animals "evolved" from nothing. They can only draw nice pictures in evolution books that have nothing to do with the reality of life on this planet.
Mutation: FACT and proven
Evolution: Fairy tale
Creation: FACT
2006-10-21 08:18:07 · answer #5 · answered by zoomat4580 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe in Creation. The Bible said that God created Adam and Eve and animals, therefore the chicken came first
2006-10-21 07:54:57 · answer #6 · answered by lm050254 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
easily, some thing that appeared very comparable to a fowl replaced into around for an prolonged time, formerly, the fowl easily progressed... in case you suspect Darwin's concept of evolution, issues are continually evolving yet no longer at a speedy %.. So fowl replaced into continually evolving and adapting to its ecosystem from some species and it took million years (or greater) to be regarded as a fowl. this implies fowl got here from some species which got here from some species and so on... so a unmarried celled organism possibly easily got here first and the egg got here from that... subsequently fowl ( on reflection, a type that replaced into regarded as fowl) got here first.
2016-10-02 12:58:51 · answer #7 · answered by huenke 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is more to the story it was a chicken and a rooster
a chicken can lay eggs but a male chicken can only make the eggs become chicks the need to be fertilized
2006-10-21 08:43:02 · answer #8 · answered by luellenstar 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The chicken. The egg was then evolved over time as the method of reproduction.
2006-10-21 07:59:07 · answer #9 · answered by johnjoe 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The chicken, a dodo bird and a vulture laid an egg. Chickens run around like crazy and can't fly, but their not completly stupid.
2006-10-24 17:03:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋