View Full Version : Which came first: The Chicken or the Egg?
Volumnius Flush
09-26-2006, 01:42 PM
I decided my major is going to be philosophy. Now I will briefly discuss a discussion I had earlier with a prospective philosophical apprentice, which I am looking for.
Origin of Chicken
To first answer this confounding query, we must agree at a starting point. Where did the chicken first appear? If you subscribe to evolution, you probably would say the chicken descended from the red junglefowl of Southeast Asia. If you are a creationist like myself, you probably believe in the pre-chicken egg.
Pre-Egg Chicken
The pre-egg chicken is symbolic of the deitistic reproductive cycle embodied in the intercourse of propagating species. Essentially, this means we begin with an 'Adam' chicken followed by a swooning 'Eve' chicken who not long thereafter lays an egg. Some pros to this theory would include the argument against the prechicken egg. Why would God create an egg first? Can it protect itself? Can the youngling fowl nurture himself? Can it sustain itself? The answer to all of these questions seem to be no. There had to be a chicken already there to nurtue, nourish, and protect the egg. This is why I believe in the pre-egg chicken. The only way I would change this view is if God grew feathers and started clucking.
Pre-Chicken Egg
On the other side of the spectrum, we have the pre-chicken egg. It's this silly idea most liberals and atheists actually take seriously. Imagine for a minute: An egg, without the warmth of its mother's bosom on his creamy white yolk, a young hedgeling making his own way, fighting the terrors of the cold, dark, wilderness. Not a pretty picture.
In conclusion, the alpha, or 'Adam' chicken is the father of all chickens, just as Father Abraham is everybody's grandpa 150 or so times removed.
If you need to clarify, this will be the 'Philosophy Only' thread and I will answer all of your questions to the best of my ability. Be sure to include whether you want your conservatism black, decaf, or with Equal.
Auberge le Mouton Noir
09-26-2006, 01:54 PM
There is no debate to be had; mutations occur before the egg has even been laid, and the first chicken egg came before the first chicken.
However, dinosaurs had eggs, so you should be way more specific.
Anyway you're an idiot because evolution doesn't say "the guinea fowl noticed that its offspring had mutated and so refused to incubate it because guinea fowl sapiens were discerning mothers"
Eccles
09-26-2006, 01:56 PM
Could you count the number of assumptions you have made using the fingers of one hand?
JollyRoger24
09-26-2006, 02:10 PM
there were two semi chickens (that sounds weird) and they mated and created a chicken. The chicken went on to find a nother semi chicken and the chicken and semi mated creating 2 more chickens and so forth and so forth the way nature works. that could be a biological idea with the whole pea idea and chromosomes
Henry Cho
09-26-2006, 02:11 PM
I believe anyone who has ever posed the question "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" should be shot and dragged through the streets like a dog.
Auberge le Mouton Noir
09-26-2006, 02:21 PM
Could you count the number of assumptions you have made using the fingers of one hand?
The only assumption I made is that god didn't plant evidence to imply to us that evolution took place falsely on some kind of ironic whim.
Eccles
09-26-2006, 02:28 PM
The only assumption I made is that god didn't plant evidence to imply to us that evolution took place falsely on some kind of ironic whim.i was talking to the threadstarter!
Mr. Ron
09-26-2006, 02:32 PM
The skillet.
Auberge le Mouton Noir
09-26-2006, 02:48 PM
i was talking to the threadstarter!
I am relieved!
The threadstarter made many assumptions, one of which was so blatantly stupid, i felt inclined to call him stupid simply for proposing it.
However, Mr Ann Coulter up there at the top of the page PROBABLY WON'T LISTEN so it's our responsibility to point out these poor assumptions to everybody else!
NEXT ASSUMPTION: You have nothing whatsoever to suggest any gods that may or may not exist do not have feathers, nor can you provide anything tosuggest that he does not cluck!If god is infinite, his having feathers is pretty inevitable, don't you think?
Eccles
09-26-2006, 02:58 PM
i think someone should answer me what the world's oldest profession really is
stevensonmat2
09-26-2006, 02:58 PM
prostitution hooray!
Eccles
09-26-2006, 02:59 PM
i heard prostitution came directly after the military, because of the laws of supply and demand
stevensonmat2
09-26-2006, 03:00 PM
They dont call em hookers for nothing.
JollyRoger24
09-26-2006, 04:13 PM
i think the oldest profesion was a farmer
pikester
09-26-2006, 04:18 PM
A chicken and an egg were lying in bed. The egg was sitting there with an upset look on it's face, and the chicken was lying there smoking a cigarette, looking very pleased with itself. It turns to the egg and says "Well I guess we answered that one, eh?
As for the oldest profession, I'm going with hunter.
sweboy
09-26-2006, 04:25 PM
From a scientific point of view, there's little debate; the egg came first. But from other views, you can discuss all kinds of crazy stuff. I see little point though in discussing a scientific question from a non scientifc point of view.
spitfirejunky
09-26-2006, 04:33 PM
Since every individual chicken was once an egg, this question must answer "both" from the evolutionary perspective.
Iskandar
09-26-2006, 04:35 PM
At what point did the ancestor of the fowl now known as a "chicken" become a chicken?
spitfirejunky
09-26-2006, 04:40 PM
In evolution, there is a huge blur that obscures the distinction between a chicken and a fowl. Since a species is defined as a population whose members can interbreed, the chicken must have come with the egg from a fowl that was chicken enough from other fowls to be considered a chicken. There is no single generation where this distinction can be made. There were many generations of fowls that were very chicken-like.
666Ozzfan
09-26-2006, 04:56 PM
The amoeba came first. Then the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs lay eggs. One day, a chicken popped out. But the question really is. Was that egg a chicken egg or a dinosaur egg?
italic zero
09-26-2006, 05:05 PM
i think someone should answer me what the world's oldest profession really is
I would guess the first real profession (that is, paid by others for their work rather than working for direct survival) would be that of a priest, possibly healer, likely a combination of both. Of course, they would be paid in the form of food and shelter, but this is distinctly different from a farmer who grows food to feed himself and his family.
http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Rob/line.jpg
http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Matt/the-chicken-and-the-egg.jpg
sweboy
09-26-2006, 05:14 PM
Since every individual chicken was once an egg, this question must answer "both" from the evolutionary perspective.
Well, in one sense, no. The first chicken egg was layed by a different bird, so therefore the egg came first. I understand your point though, that speciation is a slow process and you can't really draw a line between two generations of birds and say that a new species is created after the line, it's of course a very gradational process. But you could say that the first "pure" chicken egg (this is of course hard to define though) was layed by a non chicken mother. The mother and the egg would still be the of same species though, so it gets a bit messy. But yeah, in a "hardcore" sense, the egg came first, but it of course happens gradually.
-1up!-
09-26-2006, 07:44 PM
i think someone should answer me what the world's oldest profession really is
From an anthropologic point of view, we'd have to go with hunter or "gatherer" though the latter only exists today in more civilised forms... Like mining?
stevensonmat2
09-26-2006, 07:51 PM
Yeah the first proffesion was probably hunter/gather/hooker all in one.
spitfirejunky
09-26-2006, 07:54 PM
Well, in one sense, no. The first chicken egg was layed by a different bird, so therefore the egg came first.
No. Two species that breed cannot yield another species.
stevensonmat2
09-26-2006, 07:56 PM
Yeah, but they can yield a slightly mutated baby, which will lead to more and more mutated babies which would end up chickens.
spitfirejunky
09-26-2006, 07:57 PM
Exactly. See:
In evolution, there is a huge blur that obscures the distinction between a chicken and a fowl. Since a species is defined as a population whose members can interbreed, the chicken must have come with the egg from a fowl that was chicken enough from other fowls to be considered a chicken. There is no single generation where this distinction can be made. There were many generations of fowls that were very chicken-like.
Der Übermensch
09-26-2006, 10:42 PM
Just a warning VF, but being a philosophy major requires being relatively open minded...
stevensonmat2
09-26-2006, 10:44 PM
thats only if you want to take anything away from the classes.
I hope that the threadstarter isn't serious. A mutation occured in the egg which was nurtured by a non-chicken. When the egg hatched, out came a chicken. Although the animal from which the chicken evolved wasn't a chicken, is was most likely a very similar bird.
666Ozzfan
09-27-2006, 01:27 AM
I hope that the threadstarter isn't serious. A mutation occured in the egg which was nurtured by a non-chicken. When the egg hatched, out came a chicken. Although the animal from which the chicken evolved wasn't a chicken, is was most likely a very similar bird.
But the egg wouldn't have been a chicken egg in that case, meaning the chicken came first.
bleep_bloop
09-27-2006, 01:29 AM
Neither, the chicken evolved.
But the egg wouldn't have been a chicken egg in that case, meaning the chicken came first.
It wouldn't have been a chicken that laid the egg but a chicken came out of it. Whether it was a chicken egg or not is irrelevant because the first chicken by the definition of a chicken emerged from the egg that was laid by a non-chicken.
spitfirejunky
09-27-2006, 03:32 AM
^ Once again no.
ChimPz
09-27-2006, 03:57 AM
It was the scrambled egg that came first!
...
...
...
I'm so bored
Auberge le Mouton Noir
09-27-2006, 09:04 AM
The amoeba came first. Then the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs lay eggs. One day, a chicken popped out. But the question really is. Was that egg a chicken egg or a dinosaur egg?
Evolution isn't like pokemon, you know.
Surgicalgod
09-27-2006, 10:04 AM
You need a "usuk" choice in the poll.
It was the egg that came first. Other people already explained why.
Scythe404
09-27-2006, 12:35 PM
Neither the chicken nor the egg have the cognitive capabilities required to ponder this question, and even if they did i doubt they'd really care.
Therefore, its only interest is to serve the curiousity of us, the chicken's human masters, as we seem to believe it functions as some piece of insight into our own nature. But it's a poor metaphor for our existence; humanity evolved over dozens upon dozens of generations. Evolutionary jumps like the ones we're talking about here almost never happen, especially between two mere generations.
It doesn't really get at anything relevant to us, and the true answer in regards to the chickens themselves will probably never be known. Who gives a crap which came first? Fry me up some wings and an egg.
sweboy
09-27-2006, 12:51 PM
No. Two species that breed cannot yield another species.
In the rest of my post, which you didn't quote, I did say that speciation of course is very gradual. But let's look at it like this:
To be classed as a chicken, a bird needs to have DNA that fits into the definition of chicken DNA (There is no such strict definition today because it has no practical use, but let's assume). Alright, so we have Mother Other Bird. Her DNA does not, even though it's very close, qualify as chicken DNA. Then she lays an egg, which gets slightly different DNA - and this DNA now just fits into the definition of chicken DNA. The egg is a chicken, but the mother is not. Again..:
The mother and the egg would still be the of same species though, so it gets a bit messy.
But the very first true chicken must be the offspring of a bird who's DNA is just outside the definition of chicken DNA.
Futue te Ipsum
09-27-2006, 01:35 PM
Unless you're a follower of lamarck (which I'm sure some of you are stupid enough to be) we must conclude that the egg came first.
This is simply because the genetic make-up of the animal cannot change in such a way during it's life time, however it can between generations. A chicken cannot come from a non-chicken egg, but a non-chicken can create a chicken egg. It really is that simple...
Volumnius Flush
09-27-2006, 03:00 PM
...Although the animal from which the chicken evolved wasn't a chicken, is was most likely a very similar bird.
Why in God's name would a chicken evolve from a chicken? There would be no point to evolve if you were already a chicken.
In the rest of my post, which you didn't quote, I did say that speciation of course is very gradual. But let's look at it like this:
To be classed as a chicken, a bird needs to have DNA that fits into the definition of chicken DNA (There is no such strict definition today because it has no practical use, but let's assume). Alright, so we have Mother Other Bird. Her DNA does not, even though it's very close, qualify as chicken DNA. Then she lays an egg, which gets slightly different DNA - and this DNA now just fits into the definition of chicken DNA. The egg is a chicken, but the mother is not. Again..:
But the very first true chicken must be the offspring of a bird who's DNA is just outside the definition of chicken DNA.
They should know better than to argue with Sweboy.
I can't believe those of you who believe in the pre-chicken egg took
this seriously.
----
What kept the egg warm? Everyone knows eggs die if they aren't incubated properly.
Auberge le Mouton Noir
09-27-2006, 03:07 PM
Why in God's name would a chicken evolve from a chicken? There would be no point to evolve if you were already a chicken.
They should know better than to argue with Sweboy.
I can't believe those of you who believe in the pre-chicken egg took
this seriously.
----
What kept the egg warm? Everyone knows eggs die if they aren't incubated properly.
The mother bird?!?!?!?!
Incubating eggs is not a trait exclusive to chickens, you know.
Volumnius Flush
09-27-2006, 03:13 PM
The mother bird?!?!?!?!
Incubating eggs is not a trait exclusive to chickens, you know.
Your mother.
Baby chickens simply can't cope with the harsh, cold, outside world. They'll die of depression. Plus, they don't have any horny hens to make babies with. It just wouldn't make since. You simply have to have a rooster and a hen at home to nurture, love, and care for their young hatchlings. Without both parents at home, the culture would fall into disarray and the moral culpability for these cruel acts would be indispensable. Parents must be their for their kids.
spitfirejunky
09-27-2006, 03:48 PM
In the rest of my post, which you didn't quote, I did say that speciation of course is very gradual. But let's look at it like this:
To be classed as a chicken, a bird needs to have DNA that fits into the definition of chicken DNA (There is no such strict definition today because it has no practical use, but let's assume). Alright, so we have Mother Other Bird. Her DNA does not, even though it's very close, qualify as chicken DNA. Then she lays an egg, which gets slightly different DNA - and this DNA now just fits into the definition of chicken DNA. The egg is a chicken, but the mother is not. Again..:
But the very first true chicken must be the offspring of a bird who's DNA is just outside the definition of chicken DNA.
Point taken. All I seeked to confirm was that, like Auberge le Mouton Noir said, chicken aren't like pokemon. The allelic transformations required to make two species distinct must occur over generations, so to compare the a chicken's DNA with one of a preceding generation and expect to find such a distinction is simply impossible in the evolutionary framework. However, you can make the distinction between a chicken of today and a chicken of even 20,000 years ago.
When people say the first chicken came from an egg, I hear, "The first species of chicken came from an egg." As you've probably understood me now, I think this is absolutely absurd.
But yeah, I got your point.
Auberge le Mouton Noir
09-27-2006, 03:51 PM
Your mother.
Baby chickens simply can't cope with the harsh, cold, outside world. They'll die of depression. Plus, they don't have any horny hens to make babies with. It just wouldn't make since. You simply have to have a rooster and a hen at home to nurture, love, and care for their young hatchlings. Without both parents at home, the culture would fall into disarray and the moral culpability for these cruel acts would be indispensable. Parents must be their for their kids.
genetic information comes half from mother half from father.
Chickens aren't smart enough to have morals.
ALSO I still want to know why you assume god doesn't have feathers
666Ozzfan
09-27-2006, 04:38 PM
Evolution isn't like pokemon, you know.
Hahaha, Did I say that? Nah, I was just really bored at that time. I'm not silly. I've just been doing microbiology paper this semester and some of it covered mutations and genetics of microbes, so I know stuff about evolution :p
Volumnius Flush
09-28-2006, 01:31 PM
ALSO I still want to know why you assume god doesn't have feathers
God created man in His own image. By that reasoning, I would be classified a bird!
evaworcim
09-28-2006, 02:08 PM
volumnius flush has a good point on that one
Futue te Ipsum
09-28-2006, 03:13 PM
That "god created us in His image" belief has to be just about the most arrogant and retarded any religion has ever came out with.
Auberge le Mouton Noir
09-28-2006, 03:26 PM
God created man in His own image. By that reasoning, I would be classified a bird!
I thought god was perfect, but by your reasoning, he'd be way ugly!
Volumnius Flush
09-28-2006, 03:46 PM
I thought god was perfect, but by your reasoning, he'd be way ugly!
Then by that reasoning, you'd be as hideous as God!
/I/fail
Auberge le Mouton Noir
09-28-2006, 04:01 PM
Then by that reasoning, you'd be as hideous as God!
/I/fail
/considers having self tarred and feathered just to proove god has feathers
Why in God's name would a chicken evolve from a chicken? There would be no point to evolve if you were already a chicken.
.
Isn't that what I said?
Dr. Jake Destructo
10-01-2006, 03:09 PM
Bacteria.
AmericanWeiner
10-01-2006, 03:27 PM
Why in God's name would a chicken evolve from a chicken? There would be no point to evolve if you were already a chicken.
omg I'm laughing so helplessly right now
neal_672
10-01-2006, 04:31 PM
Volumnius Flush = best troll ever.
At least i hope so...
13 to 16 now. I was starting to worry that people actually believed in that pre-egg chicken crap.
Zesty Mordant
10-01-2006, 10:39 PM
What kept the egg warm? Everyone knows eggs die if they aren't incubated properly.
Goddammit, the pre-chicken mother keeps the soon-to-be-chicken egg warm.
TheClap
10-01-2006, 10:45 PM
Chicken, but I voted egg cause Ima fu.cking retard.
Auberge le Mouton Noir
10-02-2006, 10:15 AM
Chicken, but I voted egg cause Ima fu.cking retard.
:lol:
so what, you're some crazy bible belt hillbilly who can't work out the difference between "chicken" and "egg"?
666Ozzfan
10-02-2006, 10:23 AM
Hang on, is a chicken egg defined by what is inside it, or what layed the egg? eg. Take a duck egg, take out the duck embryo. Insert a chicken embryo. Is it a duck egg or a chicken egg?
Auberge le Mouton Noir
10-02-2006, 11:56 AM
Hang on, is a chicken egg defined by what is inside it, or what layed the egg? eg. Take a duck egg, take out the duck embryo. Insert a chicken embryo. Is it a duck egg or a chicken egg?
nature will have none of your arbitrary definitions
Futue te Ipsum
10-02-2006, 12:44 PM
Hang on, is a chicken egg defined by what is inside it, or what layed the egg? eg. Take a duck egg, take out the duck embryo. Insert a chicken embryo. Is it a duck egg or a chicken egg?I would argue that it is a chicken egg if it has a chick in it.
Secumbro
10-02-2006, 01:41 PM
Hang on, is a chicken egg defined by what is inside it, or what layed the egg? eg. Take a duck egg, take out the duck embryo. Insert a chicken embryo. Is it a duck egg or a chicken egg?
It's rape is what it is.
TheClap
10-02-2006, 10:28 PM
:lol:
so what, you're some crazy bible belt hillbilly who can't work out the difference between "chicken" and "egg"?
Actually, Im an atheist.
/you have terrible teeth.
Auberge le Mouton Noir
10-03-2006, 01:14 PM
Actually, Im an atheist.
/you have terrible teeth.
I'm not offended because it's totally true!
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.