Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Answer 1

interesting question, type the same thing you asked in google search and you'll get the answer.

Answer 2

according to this it's the EGG

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."

Answer 3

If we think of an egg as an egg that we would have in our refrigerators, than the answer is:

The chicken.

Why?

Because "first" means possibly millions of years ago which means that eggs could not exist at that point of time, (they did not "evolve" yet). Besides, you cannot have an egg without the chicken, you can however have a chicken without an egg.

Answer 4

Chicken because as we humans evolved from monkeys n apes they may have also evolved from some other bird???

A chicken, by definition, is a bird hatched from a chicken egg.
A chicken egg, by definition, is an egg laid by a chicken.

It follows immediately that there can have been no first chicken nor any first chicken egg. Ergo, if there is a chicken today, there have always been chickens and chicken eggs in the past. It can be shown that there was a time in the past when there were no chickens. It follows that there is not now, never has been, and never will be such a thing as a chicken or a chicken egg.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some persons, in response to my article on chickens and chicken eggs, argued that the solution to the paradox lay in evolution, that there was at some point in the past a bird which was not a chicken but which laid an egg from which a chicken hatched. This is all very well (although I am obliged to point out that no one has ever produced this hypothetical non-chicken who had a chicken chick) but there are difficulties with "populational thinking" upon which the evolutionary argument rests.

Since chickens seem to arouse an untoward emotional response in some of my readers I will take for my example the large mouthed bass. The principles are exactly the same and, I hope, there is less emotional involvement with large mouthed bass than there seems to be with chickens.

Consider a population of large mouthed bass. How can we tell if a particular fish is a large mouthed bass. According to the biological species concept it is a large mouthed bass if it can reproduce with other large mouthed bass. (This may be against the law in certain Southern states.) Suppose, however, that the particular fish that we are curious about is sterile. Are we then entitled to say that it is not a large mouthed bass? Perhaps so by the biological species concept and yet the state game and fisheries department will disagree with us.

An earnest evolutionist might point out that said fish (fish have no money whence the expression 'poor fish') had parents that evidently could reproduce. Since the parents were large mouthed bass the offspring was also. And yet this will not do for the evolutionist will with no apparent shame admit and proclaim that if we follow the chain of ancestry back we will find in the ancestral chain a fish which is not a large mouthed bass. We do not know what sort of fish this hypothetical non-large-mouthed bass (do you notice the lack of documentation on these hypothetical ancestors) so we may as well call it a medium mouthed bass. Would it do to say that large mouthed bass always produce large mouthed bass as offspring whereas medium mouthed bass sometimes produce large mouthed bass. Not at all; the same evolutionist who suggested the transition from the medium mouthed bass expects that the large mouthed bass will evolve into something, probably a very large mouthed bass. (I anticpate that some will appear immediately.)

The problem is that membership of an organism in a population is determined, not by its own characteristics, but rather by its relationship to other members of the supposed population. At no time is any specific bass identified as a large mouthed bass on its own merits.

Evidently we have here a problem in definition. There are three major modes of definition - intension, extension, and recursion. To define the large mouthed bass by intension we must determine a set of characteristics by which large mouthed bass and only large mouthed bass have. As the evolutionists will assure us, no such definition is possible - in the history of bass the line between the medium mouthed bass and the large mouthed bass is indistinguishable. In a definition by extension we list all bass, past and present, that are large mouthed bass by definition. This evidently fails because it does not account for future large mouthed bass which, if experience is any guide, will appear with great readiness.

There remains only definition by recursion. Here some individuals are declared large mouthed bass by fiat (Fiat was the minister of definition in Italy) and the remainder are determined to be large mouthed bass by dint of a recursive relationship - in this case the ancestor/descendent relationship. This, too, fails or so the evolutionist assures us, for the traits are not necessarily preserved by the relationship.

In short, since the existence of large mouthed bass is ineluctable, the possiblity of evolution has been disproved by definition.

Answer 5

This question appears regularly in the question file, so let's take a shot at it.

In nature, living things evolve through changes in their DNA. In an animal like a chicken, DNA from a male sperm cell and a female ovum meet and combine to form a zygote -- the first cell of a new baby chicken. This first cell divides innumerable times to form all of the cells of the complete animal. In any animal, every cell contains exactly the same DNA, and that DNA comes from the zygote.

Chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken.

Prior to that first true chicken zygote, there were only non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the chicken's egg. So, the egg must have come first.

Answer 6

The answer is the EGG.
But after my experience in Yahoo!Answers for the last 4 months, i think that
THIS QUESTION CAME FIRST.. then either the chicken or the egg.
:-)

Answer 7

I guess no body knows about that. Do you know the answer to that. Maybe egg came first from some other bird then chicken grow out of it .

Answer 8

Chicken came first,
see god created every thing from two living individual just like Adam and Eve

male and female first not an Egg and Serum

Answer 9

LOL..I don't care which one came first , but I will tell you which one I would have go first. First it would be the egg early in the morning, right into my mouth along with a piece of bacon and cup of coffee. Later on the chicken will be heading in the same direction but at a much slower pace since it is the evening and I am in no rush to go anywhere...lol oh yeah I forgot they will be arriving at the same destination at roughly the same time.

Answer 10

Chicken and the Egg

A chicken and an egg are lying in bed. The chicken is leaning against the headboard smoking a cigarette with a satisfied smile on its face. The egg, looking a bit ticked off, grabs the sheet, rolls over and says ... Well, I guess we finally answered "THAT question!"

Answer 11

In order that we answer this scientifically, we need to DEFINE what an EGG is. Based on the physical phenomena seen and experienced all over the world, EGG FORMATION BEGINS AFTER SEXUAL INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE MALE-FEMALE UNITS IN EACH SPECIE. And for this to happen, the SPECIE SHOULD BE EXISTING. Thus, in this case, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THE CHICKEN EVOLVED FIRST, WHICH LATER SEXUALLY CREATED THE EGG.