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

2007-06-09 00:17:47 · 21 answers · asked by Happy go lucky 2 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

21 answers

While it does seem puzzling at first, the answer is rather simple. The ancestor of the chicken and egg was neither, a sort of "proto-chicken". The latin name escapes at the moment, but as in all things that go thru eons of evolutionary change, one thing led to another, and the off spring of a species gradually came from within the female of the species. As a side note, some modern day creatures, such as some sharks have not evolved to the extent of being male or female, but rather propagate without the need of the other sex...anyway, i digress.

2007-06-09 13:24:23 · answer #1 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0 0

LONDON, England -- It's a question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or 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."

2007-06-09 02:06:45 · answer #2 · answered by Michael N 6 · 0 0

The first life forms were uni-cellular (which mostly resembled eggs, more than they resembled animals...
But the question only seems like a paradox, until you understand the complexity of evolution on Planet Earth...
There were millions of different microscopic lifeforms on our planet long before either an egg or a chicken evolved. Using logical inference, a slow progression of successful mutation traits occurred over millions of years that slowly but surely evolved lifeforms that were somewhere in between the chicken and the egg, until eventually multiple branches of the evolutionary tree produced something akin to an egg, which mutated further and produced something akin to a chicken, and then evetually over several more millions of years, chickens that laid eggs that produced more chickens evolved...
The chicken is the way an egg produces more eggs...not the other way around...
Fascinating, isn't it...?

2007-06-09 01:09:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It all depends. If you believe God created the world, then the chicken was first. It is easier to believe a creator would have made the bird, then let it lose so as to get on with other things, as opposed to make an egg, then incubate it, then raise the chick. If you believe in evolution, then chickens must have evolved out of a bird that was not a chicken. The very first chicken must have been born out of an egg, therefore the egg was first.

2007-06-09 00:24:55 · answer #4 · answered by epistemology 5 · 1 0

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 pissed off, grabs the sheet, rolls over, and says,
"Well, I guess we finally answered THAT question."

If it needs explaining - read it a second time

2007-06-09 00:25:42 · answer #5 · answered by turtlefrankz 2 · 0 0

Chicken , although the chicken came from the egg , the egg came from the chicken

2007-06-09 00:22:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

What do u think? We will die but our generation will be continued..so on & so forth.Like u throws a stone in lake..its ripple gos on to the shore. Stone vanishes quickly.
And Life is ocean not small lake. Whatever we do...will go ahead for centuries after centuries.
Your Question is like ZEN KOAN. one can meditate on it. This type of questions are good to cssate u r logic & mind.
Answer is, "Chick is in process of being Egg, and Egg has already became a chick "

2007-06-09 00:24:48 · answer #7 · answered by Sameer P 2 · 0 0

I think it should be the chicken that came first. Genesis 1:20 says: And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living animals, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of heaven. According to this verse, God created the animals instead of their eggs. Therefore, it's the chicken.

2007-06-09 01:11:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Chicken

2007-06-09 00:20:14 · answer #9 · answered by throw_away_your_television_2 6 · 0 0

If you believe in evolution, the egg. If you believe in God, the chicken. If you're talking about the order in that sentence in particular, the chicken comes first.

2007-06-09 00:20:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers