I don't know because it's a circle. Maybe another bird layed an egg and that turned into the chicken? I don't know.
2007-08-08 07:38:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Chicken
2007-08-08 14:39:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by Dr. Dude 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
As species change over time, in the process of evolution, the first modern chicken was the offspring of the last direct ancestor of domestic chickens to not share that classification (likely the Red Junglefowl). Therefore, a non-chicken did, in fact, lay the first egg.[13]
However, the problem may not even be relevant from this perspective, as evolution is a slow and gradual process. The birds and their eggs evolved from an ancestor species into the species we have today over millennia, a time frame that vastly obscures the reproductive cycle between chicken and egg. At no point was a "chicken egg" created from a distinct "non-chicken" species.
This lack of distinction characterizes the blurry boundaries scientists erect between species and sub-species, whose differences are only apparent when referencing mutually isolated points along the time line (or between concurrently diverging species of a common ancestor) that show significantly dissimilar genetic information. Tiny genetic perturbations are being made each generation, and it should be clarified that these differences are between the generations themselves; the egg and the chicken it becomes are identical. Therefore, one may say for semantical purposes that the egg possesses the new genetic information before the chicken, simply because the egg precedes the chicken. But again, what makes this egg the first "chicken-to-be", and not its parents?
What was referred to as a chicken two thousand years ago is not exactly what a chicken is today, and the human classification of a species must evolve with the species until it becomes necessary to begin a new classification. If a specific generation possesses the genetic signature of what humans would technically classify as a chicken for the first time, then the egg has come first. However, this would be a vain effort, as the requirements would be arbitrary, and would be no different than declaring the next generation of domestic chicken the beginnings of a new species.
The nature of species classification is inherently macroscopic in time and is not compatible with the distinction between an organism and its offspring. The question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, is ill defined, with no logical answer.
One could leapfrog from chicken all the way back to the beginnings of life in search of an origin, but eventually what constitutes an egg becomes unclear, as life originally reproduced through metabolic division. Whatever the case, the classical question becomes complicated, and serves to show that such a narrow, black-and-white attitude is not useful in philosophical analysis of life.
Essentially, all organisms began evolution as microscopic egg-shaped creatures whose descendants evolved into multitudes of complex species. Therefore the short answer is the egg came before everybody, generating eggs and sperm who combined and evolved with each generation into a more complex creature.
2007-08-08 14:40:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by maghadeera 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
In the "philosophy of science", agreed that the first chicken came from an egg.
2007-08-08 14:40:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why would a chicken get it on with an egg? Secondly why does it matter who came first? LOL
2007-08-08 14:44:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by Jeremy 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
A circle has no beginning.
But seriously, the egg. It evolved into a chicken rather than becoming whatever laid it in the first place.
2007-08-08 14:49:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The egg, it didn't have to come from a chicken, there were creatres that layed eggs before the chicken was around.
2007-08-08 14:39:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by BarrelGirl 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
an egg or the chicken wouldn't be there
2007-08-08 14:43:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by Deedee 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The chicken didn't have time to lay the egg...I was hungry.
2007-08-08 15:03:55
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Chuck Norris
2007-08-08 14:38:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by McLovin 7
·
0⤊
0⤋