Welcome, Guest

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentAuthormenda
   • CommentTimeJul 19th 2009

    
   Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
   
   Bible: Chicken. God created the male and female chicken. They then had offsprings (the eggs)
   
   The following excert is from the article entitled "Which Came First The Chicken or the Egg?" at www.howstuffworks.com
   
   How Stuff Works: This question appears regularly in the question file, so let's take a shot at it.
   In nature, living things evolve through changes in their DNA. In an animal like a chicken, DNA from a male sperm cell and a female ovum meet and combine to form a zygote -- the first cell of a new baby chicken. This first cell divides innumerable times to form all of the cells of the complete animal. In any animal, every cell contains exactly the same DNA, and that DNA comes from the zygote.
   
   Chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken.
   Prior to that first true chicken zygote, there were only non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the chicken's egg. So, the egg must have come first.
   
   My question: What did this first true chicken mate with (to form offsprings that are true chickens?)
   
   Although the first true chicken would have existed as a zygote first (therefore the egg wins), the genetic contribution of this first true chicken would be null if it didn't leave offsprings. If it's mutations left it unable to mate and reproduce with other non-chicken, then the first true chicken would be the first and last true chicken. Through mating with other non-chickens, the first true chicken could leave offspring that carried it's unique traits. The first true chicken would be contributing to the gene pool of the non-chickens. Eventually through natural selection many "true" chickens would evolve from the non-chicken gene pool.
   
   Which came first? The gene pool or the egg?
   
   How does this sound:There is only the gene pool, expressed through chickens, and non-chickens via the egg. (Very Yin and Yang).
   
   My point of view: The chicken is the egg and the egg is the chicken. They are one and the same.
   
   Feel free to correct me, clarify, or add to this discussion.
2. •  
     CommentAuthorF i L
   • CommentTimeJul 19th 2009

    
   i think it's a very out-dated question.

   I concur: Seppe Cools
3. • CommentAuthormatayu
   • CommentTimeJul 19th 2009

    
   [quote]
   The first eggs appeared long before the first chickens. They didn't contain chickens, of course. But they contained the animals whose descendants would eventually become chickens.
   
   The very first "eggs" were produced by ancient invertebrates that broadcast their gametes into the open ocean where sperm and egg fused to become a zygote (fertilized egg). Later evolution produced species that secreted a protective shell around the zygote, and this little capsule, as simple as it was, could still be considered an egg.
   
   For the sake of argument, though, let's consider only the *amniotic*egg, which is unique to vertebrates (such as chickens). It contains a complex system of internal membranes that not only hold fluid to keep the embryo moist and cushioned, but also to collect its waste and hold its nourishment (yolk). The mammalian placental system is nothing more than a modified amniotic egg that is retained internally, lacks a shell, and has modified membranes. You can find a diagram and more information about the amniotic egg here:
   
   http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/tetrapods/amniota.html
   
   The very first organisms that produced an amniotic egg were terrestrial, reptile-like animals that didn't have feathers. But one branch of this lineage did evolve and give rise to the feathered reptiles we now know as birds. This change resulted from various forces, including natural selection, genetic drift (evolutionary change due to random chance and small population size) and chance mutations that proved beneficial to the individuals that inherited them. The first, ancestral "birds" were pretty much small, feathered dinosaurs. They laid amniotic eggs, but they weren't chickens. Some of their descendants evolved into today's chickens.
   
   So if you want to take the "chicken or egg" question literally, then the egg evolved long before there were any chickens. It was only much later that the first "chicken" popped out of that amniotic egg that had given rise to many other species before.
   
   Hope that helps solve the mystery! :)
   
   Dana
   
   [/quote]
   
   SOURCE: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Evolution-3839/2008/7/evolution-chicken.htm
   
   As I thought before I looked it up, chickens evolved from other types of birds that evolved from reptiles. If you really want it traced all the way back, then you'll need to do your own footwork (find it yourself XD), because it would be one hell of a job.
4. • CommentAuthoratheist now
   • CommentTimeJul 19th 2009

    
   next time someone asks me this question, im going to quote you guys.
5. •  
     CommentAuthorStevo
   • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009

    
   I like scrambled eggs.Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.
6. •  
     CommentAuthorichi
   • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009

    
   I believe the question actually intends "if there is no chicken to lay an egg, how could there be chickens?" however, since we know that the chicken arose from a mutation, we know the first chicken HATCHED from some other non-chicken layer. I guess when you ask this question, you're really asking "are you a creationist or evolutionist?" that's a nice way to ask indirectlyRevelation, Revolution, I see through your Christ Illusion!!!
7. •  
     CommentAuthorStevo
   • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009

    
   actually depends on at what stage the creature becomes a chicken, and not just a mutation.
   Much like the stem cell debate.Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.
8. •  
     CommentAuthorichi
   • CommentTimeJul 21st 2009

    

   Posted By: Stevoactually depends on at what stage the creature becomes a chicken, and not just a mutation.
   Much like the stem cell debate.When all hope is lost.....well, your not looking hard enough.

   
   
   I guess since I believe that a chicken is a chicken when it hatches, I would be a pretty evil abortionist.Revelation, Revolution, I see through your Christ Illusion!!!
9. •  
     CommentAuthorStevo
   • CommentTimeJul 21st 2009

    
   No like, for the chicken at what stage along the evolutionary chain does it become a chicken?
   For abortion, its like when does the developing thing become human.Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.
10. • CommentAuthorKangsryche
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2009

     
    The Rooster came first. The chicken did not, . so she hen pecked him about it.