Which came first - the chicken or the egg? Possible answer : Othor Games

» Wed May 02, 2012 2:42 pm

Personally, I'm taking this story with a "grain of salt" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/17769677

» Wed May 02, 2012 7:13 pm

i have always said the chicken came first!!

» Wed May 02, 2012 8:41 pm

So I guess it was:

Chicken -> Egg -> Breakfast

» Wed May 02, 2012 4:18 pm

What does an egg have to do with a chicken?

» Wed May 02, 2012 7:43 pm

What does an egg have to do with a chicken?

I...I..errr chickens lay eggs and then said egg produces baby chicken?

» Wed May 02, 2012 7:59 pm

The answer is to accept it cannot be answered unless the answer is given from someone who knows.

» Wed May 02, 2012 12:55 pm

If you use egg in the generic sense (in that even humans come from eggs) then the egg came first.

If you use egg in the sense "a chicken's egg" then the chicken came first as the process would be not-chicken->not-chicken's egg->mutation/evolution into chicken hatching from the egg of a not-chicken.

Not that hard :shrug:

» Thu May 03, 2012 3:47 am

If you use egg in the generic sense (in that even humans come from eggs) then the egg came first.

If you use egg in the sense "a chicken's egg" then the chicken came first as the process would be not-chicken->not-chicken's egg->mutation/evolution into chicken hatching from the egg of a not-chicken.

Not that hard :shrug:

This. All of this.

Now we understand biology better the whole question is completely moot.

» Thu May 03, 2012 12:20 am

If you use egg in the generic sense (in that even humans come from eggs) then the egg came first.

If you use egg in the sense "a chicken's egg" then the chicken came first as the process would be not-chicken->not-chicken's egg->mutation/evolution into chicken hatching from the egg of a not-chicken.

Not that hard :shrug:

The egg is still literally first because it housed the first chicken. Then again, there's really no distinction since it's a chicken in the egg. So. . .

» Wed May 02, 2012 1:56 pm

If you use egg in the generic sense (in that even humans come from eggs) then the egg came first.

If you use egg in the sense "a chicken's egg" then the chicken came first as the process would be not-chicken->not-chicken's egg->mutation/evolution into chicken hatching from the egg of a not-chicken.

Not that hard :shrug:

Or the first chicken was actually an alien species, and mated with a different bird, and soon the bird holds the egg which becomes this so called "chicken"

» Thu May 03, 2012 2:54 am

The egg is still literally first because it housed the first chicken. Then again, there's really no distinction since it's a chicken in the egg. So. . .

Only in the first sense. In the second sense the definition of an egg is limited to "comes from a chicken", in other words "a chicken's egg". It's an egg, yes, just not a chicken's egg.

Basically, the problem becomes a definitional problem rather than a philosophical one.

» Wed May 02, 2012 8:31 pm

So I guess it was:

Chicken -> Egg -> Breakfast

I always figured Egg ->Chicken -> Dinner

» Wed May 02, 2012 7:45 pm

Only in the first sense. In the second sense the definition of an egg is limited to "comes from a chicken", in other words "a chicken's egg". It's an egg, yes, just not a chicken's egg.

wouldn't it be considered a chicken egg based on what creature is inside the egg and not what kind of creature laid the egg

» Wed May 02, 2012 4:58 pm

Personally, I'm taking this story with a "grain of salt" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/17769677

Doesn't it say in that article that the person who examined the hen found that the fertilized egg stayed inside? It even says that the egg hatched inside the hen, there was still an egg, but for some reason it didn't leave the hen.

The question 'which came first, the chicken or the egg?' is completely ridiculous because it shows a great misunderstanding of evolution. The first chicken didn't suddenly appear one day fully formed, it has been evolving for billions of years and, like everything, it still is. The true answer to that question? Neither came first, it was some sort of microorganism.

» Wed May 02, 2012 3:41 pm

So I guess it was:

Chicken -> Egg -> Breakfast

I always figured Egg ->Chicken -> Dinner

All I know is lunch goes in the middle :shrug:

And if that's been changed around on me 'ah's gonna be a mighty powerfully pissed off' :swear:

» Wed May 02, 2012 3:09 pm

its entertaining how you guys are actually trying to figure this out hahahah

» Wed May 02, 2012 11:40 am

Who cares? All that matters is I now have fried chicken for dinner. :cool:

» Wed May 02, 2012 3:47 pm

Who cares? All that matters is I now have fried chicken for dinner. :cool:

*Resists Racial Jokings*

» Wed May 02, 2012 6:02 pm

Neither came first, it was just a slow evolution over millions of years that created the modern chicken from an ancient reptile. Reptiles have always laid eggs therefore birds have always laid eggs, it's one of the things they did to break their connection to the water and how they themselves evolved from amphibians.

The reptiles that became the modern day birds changed very very slowly over time during breeding that has lasted for tens of millions of years and has eventually resulted in todays chicken, the chicken didn't appear from nowhere and neither did the egg

Fish > Amphibians > Reptiles > Birds (chicken)

» Wed May 02, 2012 8:23 pm

Neither came first, it was just a slow evolution over millions of years that created the modern chicken from an ancient reptile. Reptiles have always laid eggs therefore birds have always laid eggs, it's one of the things they did to break their connection to the water and how they themselves evolved from amphibians.

The reptiles that became the modern day birds changed very very slowly over time during breeding that has lasted for tens of millions of years and has eventually resulted in todays chicken, the chicken didn't appear from nowhere and neither did the egg

Fish > Amphibians > Reptiles > Birds (chicken)

I take the phrase as meaning "of the two, which came first" because obviously, as you said, neither were the first (just like the fish isn't the beginning of your line). At which point it's a problem of how you define "egg" in the question. Does an egg that comes from a !chicken that produces a chicken fit the definitional requirements of the egg object in the question? If so, the egg came first, otherwise the chicken did.

» Thu May 03, 2012 2:57 am

As Defron pointed out, it depends on whether or not "the egg" must be an actual chicken's egg. If so, then the chicken came first since its parents were not technically chickens. If not then the egg came first since the first chicken's parents were some sort of egg-laying avian species.

The question that remains in my mind is whether or not the chicken's parents were equally delicious. If so then everything actually tastes like some likely extinct chicken precursor. Mmmm...chicken precursor...

» Thu May 03, 2012 1:16 am

Both.

» Wed May 02, 2012 3:52 pm

If you use egg in the generic sense (in that even humans come from eggs) then the egg came first.

If you use egg in the sense "a chicken's egg" then the chicken came first as the process would be not-chicken->not-chicken's egg->mutation/evolution into chicken hatching from the egg of a not-chicken.

Not that hard :shrug:

But - there is still a possibility that there once was a bird who was "almost" a chicken (in a DNA sense), and it 'somehow' got some of its genes changed (radioactivity maybe) so that it became the "first chicken". Note that this potential "first chicken" would NOT have needed all of it's cells dna changed, just one cell - the one that went to make up the next generation of chickens. At what percentage of cells having the chicken dna do you call a bird a chicken?

» Wed May 02, 2012 10:12 pm

The question that remains in my mind is whether or not the chicken's parents were equally delicious. If so then everything actually tastes like some likely extinct chicken precursor. Mmmm...chicken precursor...

Now this is a question scientists should persue. I mean, what if it's MORE tasty than chicken?

But - there is still a possibility that there once was a bird who was "almost" a chicken (in a DNA sense), and it 'somehow' got some of its genes changed (radioactivity maybe) so that it became the "first chicken". Note that this potential "first chicken" would NOT have needed all of it's cells dna changed, just one cell - the one that went to make up the next generation of chickens. At what percentage of cells having the chicken dna do you call a bird a chicken?

I measure a chicken by whether or not it can end up in a bucket at KFC.

Also note that, assuming your mutated chicken is chicken enough for KFC, your example is explicitly covered in option #2, which uses the definition of egg being defined as an egg laid by a chicken :wink:

» Wed May 02, 2012 12:18 pm

Now this is a question scientists should persue. I mean, what if it's MORE tasty than chicken?

I measure a chicken by whether or not it can end up in a bucket at KFC.

I've seen some awfully small briast before, I've always suspected pigeons