Who does Evolution say came first, the chicken or the egg?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-03-2012, 04:18 PM
RE: Who does Evolution say came first, the chicken or the egg?
There is no answer OP. Because evolution didn't produce 1 first. Chickens are descendent of other animials. It took millions of years for the animal we know as chickens to evolve from their predecessors. And animals that lay eggs like the chicken are descendent of animals that didn't necessarily lay eggs. All the way back to organisms that reproduced asexually.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes germanyt's post
09-03-2012, 05:51 PM (This post was last modified: 09-03-2012 06:01 PM by samthepcman.)
RE: Who does Evolution say came first, the chicken or the egg?
(09-03-2012 04:18 PM)germanyt Wrote:  There is no answer OP. Because evolution didn't produce 1 first. Chickens are descendent of other animials. It took millions of years for the animal we know as chickens to evolve from their predecessors. And animals that lay eggs like the chicken are descendent of animals that didn't necessarily lay eggs. All the way back to organisms that reproduced asexually.

Exactly. That's what I am asking. I am simply asking if there is scientific proof that the chicken or the egg came first.
(09-03-2012 03:56 PM)Eternal Wrote:  
(09-03-2012 03:46 PM)samthepcman Wrote:  What i am saying is, If evolution is true, which one came first and why?

Why would evolution being true rest on the ability to answer this question? If god created chickens which did he create first the chicken or the egg? If you can't answer then god mustn't be real.

I am not saying god is real. If I did I wouldn't be an atheist. I merely said "If evolution is true" because mysticjbyrd made it sound like he believed in abiogenesis INSTEAD of evolution. I am still a bit confused about what he meant in his reply (other than this being a terrable question).

"He who wishes to comprehend God with his mind becomes an atheist."
- Count Nikolaus Von Zinzendorf
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-03-2012, 05:51 PM
RE: Who does Evolution say came first, the chicken or the egg?
(09-03-2012 03:46 PM)samthepcman Wrote:  
(09-03-2012 03:30 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  
(09-03-2012 03:25 PM)samthepcman Wrote:  Everyone knows that chickens come from eggs, eggs come from chickens, chickens come from eggs, ect. So which came first?

I overheard a conversation between a classmate and my LA teacher, and my classmate made the point that if chickens had gradually changed over time that if we went far back to the first (what would meet our definition of a) chicken, it would have been born in an egg from it's "parent" species.

What do you think. Is there evidence that the chicken was born in an egg from it's "parent" species, or is there evidence that the chicken became a different species first, and then evolved the ability to lay eggs?

Neither abiogenesis was first, which isn't even a part of the theory of evolution.

There ya go, thats the answer...now you never have to ask that terrible question again!

What i am saying is, If evolution is true, which one came first and why?

If you are trying to force us to pick between 2 answers that aren't really true, then neither answer matters nor any conclusion you draw from it. The answers to questions we seek in life do not come in multiple choice format.

What does 2+2 equal? 5 or 6? Well obviously neither, its 4.

Likewise the answer to your loaded question isn't either of the choices provided, but abiogensis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-03-2012, 06:04 PM (This post was last modified: 09-03-2012 06:07 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Who does Evolution say came first, the chicken or the egg?
(09-03-2012 05:51 PM)samthepcman Wrote:  
(09-03-2012 04:18 PM)germanyt Wrote:  There is no answer OP. Because evolution didn't produce 1 first. Chickens are descendent of other animials. It took millions of years for the animal we know as chickens to evolve from their predecessors. And animals that lay eggs like the chicken are descendent of animals that didn't necessarily lay eggs. All the way back to organisms that reproduced asexually.

Exactly. That's what I am asking. I am simply asking if there is scientific proof that the chicken or the egg came first.

If your question is just did an animal lay eggs before it was a bird that evolved into a chicken... then yes.

Chickens Lay eggs because they evolved from Fouls/Pheasants. They are birds. All birds(female of course) lay eggs. Birds evolved from Dinosaurs who laid eggs.

The scientific proof of these events are in the fossils and genetics of these animals.

Unless I am dead wrong here Mysticjbyrd... I read it as he is asking what came first out of the options, Egg birth or another form of birth for a chicken, not WHAT CAME FIRST in the context of all life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
09-03-2012, 06:09 PM (This post was last modified: 09-03-2012 06:15 PM by samthepcman.)
RE: Who does Evolution say came first, the chicken or the egg?
Exactly. Perhaps I didn't explain it well. I have a problem with that sometimes.

"He who wishes to comprehend God with his mind becomes an atheist."
- Count Nikolaus Von Zinzendorf
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-03-2012, 07:17 PM
RE: Who does Evolution say came first, the chicken or the egg?
(09-03-2012 06:04 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(09-03-2012 05:51 PM)samthepcman Wrote:  
(09-03-2012 04:18 PM)germanyt Wrote:  There is no answer OP. Because evolution didn't produce 1 first. Chickens are descendent of other animials. It took millions of years for the animal we know as chickens to evolve from their predecessors. And animals that lay eggs like the chicken are descendent of animals that didn't necessarily lay eggs. All the way back to organisms that reproduced asexually.

Exactly. That's what I am asking. I am simply asking if there is scientific proof that the chicken or the egg came first.

If your question is just did an animal lay eggs before it was a bird that evolved into a chicken... then yes.

Chickens Lay eggs because they evolved from Fouls/Pheasants. They are birds. All birds(female of course) lay eggs. Birds evolved from Dinosaurs who laid eggs.

The scientific proof of these events are in the fossils and genetics of these animals.

Unless I am dead wrong here Mysticjbyrd... I read it as he is asking what came first out of the options, Egg birth or another form of birth for a chicken, not WHAT CAME FIRST in the context of all life.

What you said about evolution is true. However, there is an additional problem. If we had the entire evolutionary history of the chicken, then at some point down the evolutionary line of the of the would be chicken lies a single point where we would declare the 1st generation of chicken to arise.

The problem is that the animal would have to be an adult for us to actually recognize it as a chicken. So what of the egg that the chicken came from? Can that egg be declared to be the 1st chicken?

From that point you have a dilemma similar to that of abortion. Is a fetus actually a human? There is no way to really say definitively either way, and one can do is argue with semantics in an infinite loop.

Which is why I think mysticjbyrd is right. Its a loaded question that has no real answer. Instead when you bring the question down to its simplest form all you are left with is a infinite regression debate of whether the an egg is a chicken.

Its a loaded question that has no real answer in the context given. I can only assume its designed to be a paradox to stump people in favor of evolution. While the atheist humbly suggests the question cannot be answered within the context, the theist can claim that god made the chicken 1st.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2012, 02:40 AM
RE: Who does Evolution say came first, the chicken or the egg?
Sam, I'd say the simple answer is that the chicken came first. Although it surely wasn't anything that looked like a chicken when it did. What ever it was it's continued survival depended on mutating from a single dividing from of reproduction to a multiple dividing reproduction or, just as important, a system for feeding. Speculatively speaking, let's say a single celled organism that did at one point simply grow and divide itself in order to regenerate, eventually mutated to divide itself for a more economical way of feeding. Think of the way ants or bees reproduce by having many that gather food while only one is responsible for dividing it's cells (laying the eggs) into more bees/ants. In some species, any ant can become the queen but only one is necessary. The rest gather the food and protect the fort. I know these examples are a stretch but it's possible that it could have went from a cooperation like that onto one like that of the penguin. Where over time instead of having a vast team that gathers food and one that reproduces, you have only two penguins that divide the responsibilities of feeding themselves and protecting the one egg they both make in order to reproduce. It's a deep question. One that you should *never* stop asking Smile
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grassy Knoll's post
10-03-2012, 08:46 AM
RE: Who does Evolution say came first, the chicken or the egg?
I think the problem with this question is that the chicken is a lie, there is no chicken in the same way there are no circles or squares or anything perfect in it's essence.

in other words, we can't define all the traits of a species based on only one individual and not all the traits of a species are present in an individual.

So this question about chickens and eggs can be rephrased as "what was first, the individual or the species?" and the first answer that comes to my mind is neither and both, neither because you can't have a species without it's individuals and you can't have individuals that don't form a species, and both because when the species changed also did the individuals that belong to it, and the individuals by changing made the species.

I can see the difficulty of this apparent paradox because it deals with a part and the whole of a complex system, but in the same way my cells are human but not humans and I'm a human but I'm nothing without my cells, the chicken and the egg came to be as they are together in the same path, as one cannot exist without the other, because one is the part, and the other is the whole Big Grin

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2012, 09:30 AM
RE: Who does Evolution say came first, the chicken or the egg?
It all depends how you define "chicken" or "egg". Here's a handy infographic that may provide you some answers Smile

[Image: 2012-02-06-Chicken-Egg.jpg]

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like robotworld's post
10-03-2012, 10:02 AM (This post was last modified: 10-03-2012 10:07 AM by craniumonempty.)
RE: Who does Evolution say came first, the chicken or the egg?
To the OP, this is a bad question, but it's hard to explain, because slow gradual change that occurs over periods that not just one but many generations will never see make it difficult. If a single animal were to become another species overnight, the species would die out when it died, because it would lack ability to reproduce with anything else. Roosters still have to fertilize the egg (which seems to be ignored in most chicken-egg discussions), so to have an egg hatch a species of chicken with no viable way to reproduce would have meant that they would die when that chicken died. There were gradual small changes over time that separated prior species over time. They were the same species as the one they came from and slowly developed into another over many generations until one day when two groups (or more) happen to meet again they are no longer able to reproduce. Then they are difference species. One of those groups might further adapt to their environment in a different way then others due to whatever environmental pressures are on them and slowly change even more. They might even separate again. If the separation and a long period of time and slow changes causes them not to be able to reproduce among the groups, then they become separate species again. The chickens are no different. Slow gradual changes over time... maybe some speed-up due to environmental pressures, but as long as they have the ability to mate with the species they came from (natural reproduction) then they are still part of that species (even though that is something that still argued among some species). Once there is enough time and enough changes where they can no longer reproduce with the other, they have become separate from the other. Thus the chicken became. There was no "chicken" nor "egg" that came first, because if the egg was a different species then the one before it, it wouldn't be fertilized, if the chicken were different, then it would lay eggs that wouldn't be fertilized. Slow gradual change. That's why the question doesn't make any sense.

As far as abiogenesis, that is when non-life became life as we know it. That was probably a really long slow process as well. Quite possibly a longer process then speciation is. Evolution doesn't deal with that problem, because that's not what evolution is about. It deals with things that are already alive. It's another field entirely (although they might share data in a few places).

Defy gravity... stand up. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: