2007-02-08 03:37:00 · 22 answers · asked by m11aal 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
The egg because two creatures that weren't quite chickens go together, their respective genetic structure jolted just a little bit and the egg which resulted became a chicken
2007-02-08 03:42:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're obviously not talking about one chicken here, since the egg comes before the chicken appears from it. Nor do you mean chickens in general and eggs in general, since there were many other egg-layers before there were chickens.
Do you mean which had chicken DNA first, the bird that laid the first chicken egg or the egg that it laid? That looks like a reasonable question, but it's not really. Chicken DNA must have been in considerable flux over a number of generations before it settled down to a stable state. There was no such thing as the first chicken, or egg.
2007-02-11 09:35:21 · answer #2 · answered by Recumbentman 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The chicken egg
2007-02-08 03:57:02 · answer #3 · answered by Golden 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The egg came first because there had to be a mutation in the DNA of whatever was inside the egg, giving rise to the modern chicken.
2007-02-08 04:18:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depending on what you mean FIRST
1. The First 'Chicken' would appear from an egg laid as the result of two birds mating who had a mutant gene giving rise to an offspring which didn't resemble either parent, but had characteristics of both.
2. This would then have laid the first 'Chicken's Egg', giving rise
to the first true 'Chicken' born of 'Chicken'.
Slightly simplistic, but 1 = the chicken came first , and, 2 = Egg first!
2007-02-08 03:45:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The chicken is just a genetic by product from an egg making another egg.
2007-02-08 03:45:45 · answer #6 · answered by spiegy2000 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Further to JON C's answer, this little tester never stated that the egg was a chicken egg...
From an evolutionary standpoint, eggs are an ancient evolutionary device that show their tremendous value by still being a very basic form in the life-cycle of the vast majority of creatures.
For those of you who are going to argue about creationism, if there is a god do you really think he/she would've started with chickens? No, I thought not...
2007-02-08 03:51:06 · answer #7 · answered by Batho 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is not an "either-or" question. You see, everyone thinks in terms of cause and effect, first one, then the other. They think in terms of linear time, time marching on, time moving from point A to point B. First this happens at point A, then the other thing happens at point B. But this type of thinking is flawed. It is basically untrue and incorrect and not at all accurate.
The fact is, "chicken" and "egg" occur at the same time, IN the same moment, simultaneously, one inside the other, each inside each other, both in one simultaneously occurring moment.
The "chicken-and-the-egg" question, as flawed and funny as it is, is really very simple: Chicken and the egg are one in the same.
2007-02-08 03:50:41 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ive just answered this question for some1 else. the chicken lays an egg and the egg hatches into a chicken -ok!
2007-02-10 11:01:46 · answer #9 · answered by Miss Karen Roe 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the chicken, since to have a chicken egg you first require the chicken
2007-02-08 05:19:00 · answer #10 · answered by sisyphus 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋