although it is true that eggs hatch into chickens and the chickens then lay eggs, I considered the following:
chickens can live independently, while eggs cannot. For an egg to hatch successfully, there must have been a chicken there to hatch it. This chicken also came from an egg, but for the egg to hatch, it must logically also have a chicken hatching the egg. So no matter how far back you go, we must conclude that the chicken came first.
not bad, eh???
2007-11-03 08:36:03 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
sounds interesting!
2007-11-03 08:44:45 · answer #1 · answered by T J 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nice theory, regardless of whether it's true or not.
One flaw though, why can't there have been an egg that wasn't hatched?
Now you can say 'if it wasn't hatched there would've been no chicken on earth now' but it would be the same story if the chicken was first, because that means the chicken 'spawned' in some other way than through an egg, meaning there can be chickens without hatching the egg. Thus hatching an egg isn't necessary for the egg to exist.
Oh and it's just about the theory/philosophy, not about what's true =)
2007-11-03 16:26:48 · answer #2 · answered by Mich90 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The answer to this classic question is NEITHER.
The chicken and the egg evolved together. The concept of this question is part of the religious creation way of thinking in which the nature is linear. That's not true because evolution works with changes and ramifications. Take for example the sharks, some sharks put eggs and other give birth. What type of shark came first?
2007-11-03 16:01:55 · answer #3 · answered by Lost. at. Sea. 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I had given this answer myself when I was new to Y/a, but seeing that an 'orthodox' answer got the vote, I gave up answering the question whenever I saw it posted .
Even so,"our' answer would still not make for a plausible general theory - with tortoise, for instance,the eggs are unattended and we are back to 'which first, the tortoise or the egg?' (with modification).
2007-11-03 16:35:15 · answer #4 · answered by shades of Bruno 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both came first. They only exist because we believe they do, so both came first. About fifty percent of humanity would say the egg came first and the other fifty would say the chicken. No one is right and no one is wrong. All the answers are obvious when you answer why it is a chicken, that is more important than what it is.
2007-11-03 16:05:04 · answer #5 · answered by weism 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think you answer the question by just giving your reason on one side only, which make you only considered one side thus its not complete. This question cant really solved by this method. When you consider both, you will realise its a paradox cycle. You cant just consider one side only, thinking that waht happen before or after that is not important or relevant.
2007-11-03 18:12:43 · answer #6 · answered by Sickxually Inactive 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually dinosaurs laid eggs, so the egg came first.
2007-11-03 15:57:47 · answer #7 · answered by Kelly 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Eggzactly!!!
2007-11-03 17:39:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Shure ,,,No chicken to lay th' fir,,,,BUT WAIT "the rooster"???? chicken--s first!!!!
2007-11-03 20:06:49 · answer #9 · answered by hamoh10 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I solved it by having one for breakfast and one for lunch.
2007-11-03 16:17:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋