Which comes first?

Chicken or Egg?

In my humble opinion, chicken came first.

If the egg came first...

...When predator step on it, it will be damaged & no chick to hatch.
...When predator wanna eat it, egg cant protect itself & hence no chick to hatch.

If chicken, at least dinosaur chase it, it can run.

Furthermore, it is during the life cycle of the chicken that evolution & adaptation to its surrounding that make the chicken improve & changes it's DNA to suit the environment for the next coming generation.

Then only 2 chicken mate & produce egg .

What do you think?

tq.

Chicken comes first in my opinion. Maybe 2 unknown animal from the past makes love and the result is chicken

This post has been edited by Sifha238: May 9 2010, 09:15 PM

egg 1st. who layed the egg? the ancestor of "chicken" that is technically not a "chicken"

.....
in the end it is how you define what is a chicken and what is an egg...

I think this is more like /k/ material rather than in here.

It is obvious that there is basically no answer to this question since you cannot find any solid evidence of supporting any arguments you make, it'll just turn into an endless spams or pointless reply.

Egg comes first.

Oh thank u very much.

my assumption was wrong...

fainting.gif

What u expect to get from this question?
In my experience looking at how ppl answer this question i just see endless argument about egg or chicks first existence but none of them can have solid argument to support their answer and also to argue about others reason
In another words, its a waste of time discuss about sometime that does not have a conclusion forever

It's an unanswered question. I'll say the egg comes first. Just a personal preference without any science justification finding(s).

Regards, Joey

the eggsperts seem to have a logical theory

This topic pretty much resemble the question of the origins of the universe, and besides of an explanation that includes a particular Deity/Creator, we're pretty much like my nick: a deadlock.

I do not agree with some of the friends here who believed that asking this question is pointless. This is a very good question, if someone creates spams and meaningless replies, it is the person who needs to be educated, and not the question itself. Try looking at any serious science books on topic related to searching for origin of life, the question of chicken and egg always pop up. Not just in sciences, this question also carries weight in philosophy and religion.

Philosophy
If chicken needs egg and egg needs chicken, this is a typical type of causal feedback loop. Putting our heads inside the cloudy water of this continuous loop yields no answer, hence a paradox.

Every human who exists has a mother.....but obviously the human race hasn't a mother ------ Bertrand Russell

When looking at a macroscopic or microscopic level to a question, it exhibits a different attribute, which in this case, mother (chicken) may not be necessary.

Science
A blacksmith shapes iron using iron tools, which means he needs iron instruments to make iron instruments.

Question: Where did the first iron instrument come from?

Answer: The first blacksmith might has used stones, or woods, to shape the first iron instruments.

What does this mean? What gave raise to a sword or an arrow (a child) may not be an iron instruments (mother). Even without an iron instruments (mother), the sword or the arrow (the child) could be raised irregardless.

In the chicken and egg scenario, one thing for sure is the DNA and its RNA are similar and forms the continuation of the life form irregardless of which form comes first, although the egg is more likely to happen first. The nucleic acids and proteins formed a mutual benefit properties that locked within the so called "egg" and giving raise to the life form so called "chicken".

Religion
More interested with logic and reason (philosophy) and science (dialog with nature), not going to discuss here.

i tot the universe started wth a Big Bang?

No?

Its 12.47am now so my mind abit....not so blur, so i might misunderstood ur concept here

Anyway, to the bold part
If u use the concept of iron piece and iron hammer, the source of origin would be from the nature
However if we back to the topic, we will still loop back to the question: "Where the egg comes from?"
or to my question: "What is the source of origin of an egg?"

Ya, according to the theory of universe existence
Just a theory thru

the article neoengsheng posted recently has given a very logical answer,scroll up and read it...
Scientific theory differs from the word 'theory' that we normally used in daily life to denote something whose validity remains unknown,it's been subjected to numerous validations and the evidences found are in support of it...
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 10 2010, 04:05 PM

just one of the theory and no one can relly explain the secret about universe yet... not even hawkings

i wonder why people are still obsessed with this kind of questions.

what good will it bring when you realise the true answer?

will you be a happier person?

will you live longer(and healthily) for an extra 10 more years?

will we able to clone more eggs and chickens?

zstan, if we looked at all the PhD dissertations in the world, I believe we will be asking the same questions you asked. Here is a few to look at:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=264822

Its human nature to be curious and frankly I can't see anything wrong with it.

Chicken and egg come at the same time. Without chicken there is no egg, without egg there is no chicken. But when they come together, then the riddle is solved. How would that be possible? That would be possible by looking at what we mean exactly by saying chicken and egg and the relationship between these 2 definitions. Thus, chicken and egg come in as a single entity as something that is exactly between a chicken and egg. That entity is neither chicken or egg but something just right in between a chicken and an egg, so it comes first as a chicken and an egg.

i am just specifically talking about this chicken n egg issue...

no egg no chicken, no chicken no egg, at the 1st, GOd produce a chicken 1st to the world, then oni come with egg~ i think so ~

I don't think so. If there is a god, he would have produced an egg first. Why? Because there is a process involves from an egg to a chicken. So a fully formed chicken has "less information" that an egg. Since an egg is more powerful than a chicken, definitely a god created a chicken is less powerful than a god created an egg and you can't have that, can you?

sounds logical 2me:P

chciken comes first u fool. Study your bible. In the first day God create light then few days later the animals and stuff. God wouldnt be so dumb to create an egg and risk being step over by other animals. Waste of effort. A wiser choice will be to create a chicken directly and let it develop.

Chicken come 1st la... without chicken hw can the egg hatch ? =.=

did god just create sperm and the egg ? nop he created humans =D so chicken got the be the correct answer =)

---

Added on May 11, 2010, 9:45 amtotally agree =D




This post has been edited by jarod89: May 11 2010, 09:45 AM

please keep religious opinion out of this thread,this thread is about zoology,which is a branch of life sciences,religious information is definitely not part of it,so behave yourselves...

The eggplant came first

Good reasoning...

Now... r we gonna discuss about origin of human too?

The eggplant!

The egg comes first. Simple. The not-so-chicken laid a mutated egg which becomes a chicken.

been resisting for so long....

actually.....








the cock comes 1st *barumbum*

um...not funny.

pleaase la.. this is not a funny thread.. please give your professional opinion

scientific and logic opinion agrees that the egg comes before the chicken.

creationist as per usual hold out that chicken must be created first.

whats there to discuss?

Both of ur main point is debatable provided only if god is PROVEN to be exist, which is in the other thread.
Of course according to the bible we dont need egg to produce chicken, only need god's hand to bring chickens out

If we think in scientific perspective, we can assume that egg come first.
Since dinosaur do produce eggs, it is not entirely impossible that evolution/devolution of dinosaur produce the first chicken in the world
Of course, this is just assumption

you guys are blinded with 'chicken' and 'egg', the true question to this should be, are we born.. or are we made?

the simple answer is, both questions have their own answer..., not one.

---

Added on May 13, 2010, 6:38 pmand there is another question from that also..., is the chicken male or female? ><... and which one first??

This post has been edited by eone: May 13 2010, 06:38 PM

obviously we are born into this world, i have not seen a "made" human.

interesting, whatever it is, the chicken must come to this world as a pair, male and female. and surely its impossible for egg comes first

err, where is evolutionist?

---

Added on May 15, 2010, 11:26 pmbut , we are created at the first place right? same case as chicken, i just thinking that for some reason, we must came to this world by pair.

btw, why humans not lay egg? (obviously question for evolutionist )

---

Added on May 15, 2010, 11:28 pmsome more question, how does chicken come to this world .why you are considering egg to come to this world at the first place?

This post has been edited by azerroes: May 15 2010, 11:29 PM

aiyaaaaaa..you ahhhhhhhhhh

in the very beginning there was chinese and indian. chinese married indian. come out baby is chindian. where got need chindian pair to create chindian baby wan?

sweat betul u.

not that good of an analogy teongpeng,.....but still there's something to learn from it...

evolution can occur through small changes and changes is small enough that there can be interbreeding between chicken and pre-chicken

also.....the difference in definition of variety and species there's still gray areas....

eg: Saint Bernards and Chihuahuas
if you put them together, they are unlikely to interbreed between the 2 variety of dog due to huge difference in size although breeding can be done artificially....
so species : natural classification or artificial? same goes for variety....
so sometimes it is hard to say that 1 is a new species

wrong.

internal fertilization and gestation (eg. give birth) has a higher survival rate compared to external fertilization (eg. fish) and external gestation (eg. eggs)

species that do internal gestation (most mammals) only exist later and is more evolutionary advanced.

to preempt the most common follow-up question of "then why dont chicken give birth if its much better?" - because laying eggs still works well enough for that level of existence.

To continue the explanation from religion thread, let's say humans lay eggs. Will there be any difference in your explanation based on your theory of creation or religious perspective? There is no difference, isn't it? It will be always the same no matter what, just like one's imagination. If it can explain everything whatever you can ever imagine, say humans divide like cells do, how do you know it is real because there is only 1 reality out there.

wow, im impressed by the selection of naturals .but human laying egg is not a bad idea though. how can we suggest to the naturals

but why there is only 2 kinds of gender : male and female .

i also wonder if we do got a species, but with the absence of the other gender,will the species extinct?

This post has been edited by azerroes: May 16 2010, 03:00 AM

there are hermaphrodites in nature also asexual also

No, it won't, there's a form of reproduction called parthenogenesis in which only one gender is required to reproduce, New Mexico whiptail for example has been documented to having exclusively females in the entire population, it reproduces solely through parthenogenesis...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnemidophorus_neomexicanus

This post has been edited by CleverDick: Aug 18 2010, 01:10 AM

at the end, its only a combination of male and female. still 2 gender

wow, i never knew that. to prevent a species to extinct is this way. how can we make the creature turn to produce this way

btw, you make me more and more impressed on God creations. its just mind-blowing and surprising. and it just make me more deeply believe to my God . thanks fella

asexual has no gender, not two genders, and the example of parthenogenesis that i gave appears to have arisen naturally through the cross breeding of two distinct species, god has not been observed to play any significant role in the process...

you're welcome, if thinking this way makes you happier, go ahead...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: Aug 18 2010, 01:09 AM

hermaphrodite is not 2 gender....just an organism with both male and female reproductive organ allowing reproduction with just 1 parent

relate it to the topic, i wonder how much i impressed with the wisdom of God. still i can say that this chicken-egg thing is in the God knowledge. so powerful that He can make sea creature that have a body like fish give birth eg. whale.

to many things that i see in the world that i just assume its the will and power of god to determine it.

face it, we need the other gender ( not to mention i thank god for creating the other gender )

---

Added on May 16, 2010, 3:24 amcan you please understand my statement? is it possible for me to suggest the THIRD gender for human? currently we have male and female. so i want more. can or not?

This post has been edited by azerroes: May 16 2010, 03:24 AM

you never mentioned about that here :

last time i saw it on the newspaper which said gt a scientist found out that the chicken come 1st than the egg.
i oso dunno he made this statement based on wat prove.

You are begining to sound paranoid. Are you ok or are you just throwing tantrum around?

If you have already decided that all the things you see and experience are god, despite the contrary evidence or argument presented to you, which you dismissed without even an argument, I don't understand what is your point of posting here. You are not really interested in discussion or argue in a way people would be convinced. Are you here just to inflate your ego?

My apology for unable to reply sooner, was kind of bz lately.
This thread asked for which one came first, chicken or egg and not what was the source of origin of an egg or a chicken? By asking this question, it is off topic slightly as you are asking what was the source of the origin of life forms.

R u expecting me to "answer" this very puzzle of mankind? The origin of life which is still being discussed, debated and continuingly discovered in philosophy and science. What I have is only an opinion and some point of view.

There are two branches of philosophy and sciences that touch this, holism and reductionism.

Holism is the idea that all the properties of a given system (physical, biological, chemical, mental, etc.) cannot be determined or explained by its component parts alone. The general principle of holism was summarized by Aristotle in the metaphysics: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts".

A chicken or an amoeba is alive simply because the system as a whole determines and control how the parts behave. The consciousness or life exists because of this interaction between parts.

When you go down town and look at a huge neon light/LED display board showing an actor (says Brad Pitt) on the screen, do you think the actor's soul goes inside the screen? Else why do you think he is Brad Pitt and not your neighbour John? The screen is merely consist of billions of light bulb/LED. This is where holism comes in, when billions of dots combined together,"the whole" gives raise a new attribute, which is a person called Brad Pitt. However, when you try to study each dots that produce this body, Brad Pitt can never be found from each of the dots.

On the other hand, reductionism is sometimes seen as the opposite of holism. Reductionism in science says that a complex system can be explained by reduction to its fundamental parts. For example, the processes of biology are reducible to chemistry and the laws of chemistry are explained by physics.

String theory
Look at the following, which is the smallest particle that exists: atom -> proton -> quark -> string
In different era, the smallest elimentary particle always being refined as sciences and technology progresses.

Under string theory, proton, electron, positron, boson, fermion (strong force, weak force), photon (EM wave), graviton (general and special theory) all these elements are identical fundementally and the only different is they are strings that vibrates in N dimensions, and thus give raise to the charge, mass, flavor differences.

If neutron, electron, proton (particle), graviton (gravity) and light (photon) are all but the "same" elements, What is the different between says a chicken to an amoeba as they are from the very same elementary particles. The interaction (the orientation, the force) between these strings are unique and gave raise to all different objects and life forms that we observed today.

This is what M-Theory (supersting theory) suggested, as part of the initiative to combine all the four forces (as above) into one Theory Of Everything (TOE).

For your question, what is the source of origin of an egg, what about the egg was raised as a result of many different strings (proton, positron, electron, neutron) with different orientation and different forces that combines become protein structure (the hardware, body) and nucleic acids (the software, DNA) and forms an egg?

And this different combination and orientation of elimentary particles forms different life forms we observed today.

If you are interest, please take a look at the following book "What Is Life" by Erwin Schrodinger, a famous physicist in quantum mechanic. There are many relationship between life and quantum mechanic, and quantum mechanic provides a very good mechanism to explain life itself.

So your next question is how did the first string or first few strings exists?

This post has been edited by nice.rider: May 19 2010, 05:11 PM