Chicken or the Egg?

What came first?

The Chicken
3 votes
The Egg
4 votes
Both at the same time
0 votes
None of them came first
1 votes
Valuna panfried them both
4 votes

Only members can vote.

page 1 of 1 13 total items

Valuna

Retired Moderator

Valuna

Naughty Artist

Cancel

It's almost Easter! Let's discuss the classic question of what came first:

The Chicken...or the Egg?

Don't give short replies. If you are going to reply, please give a reason/argument that supports your decision.

I'll share my theory with you guys. It is a mix of both for me, but if any, it would be the Egg as it is the "new generation" of a species. Knowing that lifeforms adjust to their surroundings with time and with many generations. I would say that the actual "chicken" as we know it, started to exist after many, many generations. So, it would slowly become a chicken with each new egg laid, through natural selection.

Happy Easter days ♥

These beautiful, fragile days are reborn, unfaded
Signature
	Image

Redwyn

Redwyn

#SJW apparently

Cancel

A t-Rex or something. Before there were chicken, there were probably some ugly mofo that they were descendent from right? so evolution and some cream happen and finally resulted in the chicken we know and love to deep fry.

Ps: I have no idea what I'm talking about.

#likethat'sabadthinglol

Cirru

Cirru

Interstellar Force

Cancel

Valuna panfried them both - excellent choice *votes*

Actually, agree with what Valuna posted.

Mmmm... short story time. =b

Traveling light years across the galaxy in their ship, the Cluckmeister 5000, a species of fowl began to panic as they were hit by an asteroid. These beings, known as chickens, were flapping noisily and feathers were flying everywhere. Calming the situation down, Capt. Rex Rooster crowed mightily and asked for the nearest planet to make a landing on. Urantia (aka Earth) came up on their scanners. Temperate climate, various life forms, and a wide variety of land types - this could work out.

Setting their course, they prepared to enter the atmosphere of Urantia. The egg pod system was malfunctioning, so they would all go down in the ship. Hull plates were heating up and system alarms were going off as the temperatures rose. The chickens felt like they were being baked alive without oil, feathers and all.

Breaking through the last layer of the atmosphere, the helmsman tried to steer the ship haphazardly to a dry piece of land. With a loud boom, the ship crashed into a grassy hillside and the crew were tossed about. The hull plating, panels, and wiring sizzled and hissed as they began to cool. Collecting himself together, Capt. Rex Rooster clucked out orders to attend to the injured, check on the eggs and chicks, and form a scouting party. Gathering the scouting the party, he proceeded to the docking bay door and forced it open. Leading the party out, they gazed on the blue sky dotted with puffy white clouds, rolling hills of emerald grass, and droplets of azure ponds. It seemed so beautiful, this place. He would name it Henclucky (later known to humans as Kentucky).

Darthas

Retired Moderator

Darthas

レキシコン

Cancel

Oviparous animals existed before chickens did - Egg came first.

[20:54] Lexicon: I may be 3rd place in the popularity poll but at NASA, the # order is 3>2>1.
[20:56] DXBlair: its a placement poll..not a countdown idiot
[SIG design by Valuna]
Signature
	Image

Cancel

1) ^ This
But certainly the egg in question here is 'the chicken egg' in particular. So one can argue that the eggs from which the first chickens came from weren't chicken eggs per se and the eggs laid by chickens though only slightly different from the earlier species' eggs were the Egg in question here. So it can be said that the Chicken came first from an egg of a bird which was almost a chicken but didn't quite make it and then came the Egg.

2) But this argument is based on the line of thinking that if the bird was different that the chicken to a certain degree which we defined as threshold of chicken-ness should be exactly same as the degree of difference between that bird's egg and the chicken's egg i.e. the threshold of chicken-egg-ness is same as threshold for chicken-ness.
But we cannot claim it so! Maybe the eggs of the bird or even its previous generation bore more resemblance to the chicken egg than the bird itself did to the chicken. And in this case we would be obliged to say that the chicken egg came first!

3) Also, it might be a possibility that the egg-resemblance and chicken-resemblance varied from bird to bird in the same place or at least from birds who evolved into chickens in one place to birds who evolved into chickens in another place. So we cannot make a blanket statement in this case as for some cases, by way of decision discussed earlier, the egg came first. And for some cases, it was the chicken that came first.

So to be able to answer this question we would first have to decide if it were case 1) in which thresholds were same or case 2) where they were different or case 3) where it depended on bird to bird or place to place (or even temperature/seasons/etc. I guess)

And I don't think it'll be easy to tell if it's case 1), 2) or 3) without doing a deep research on the conditions during those times which.. at least I think.. is nearly impossible (especially with the uselessness of this research being a great negative factor)

So I think we can tell which came first when we get more data on this.
Till then, this question will persist.

Darthas

Retired Moderator

Darthas

レキシコン

Cancel

There will never be more data because the question has no starting point. The most logical answer would be that the egg was laid and what hatched wasn't what everyone expected it to be, said subject then laid more eggs of it's kind which gradually started processes. It's less logical to assume chickens came first as they have no ancestors pre-dating their existence outside of the oviparous species.

In strict sense, the only way to find out the 'answer' is to look at how Life began, how it started and what was the reason for how Life came into the world. In Christianity, people refer to themselves as 'Children of God' - because they believe God made them in His image. Following that line of thought, one could say: God is how Life started. Science focuses on more material things though and the beginning of all Life usually starts with an egg.

ToE mentions several times that mutations and evolution is possible while an egg is laid, prior to hatching due to the structure of DNA. Similar to the all famous chart of how humans evolved from apes, it didn't happen all in 1 day. Evolution occured only to forward survival for the 'oddball' community who chose to live outside the norm of the species.

[20:54] Lexicon: I may be 3rd place in the popularity poll but at NASA, the # order is 3>2>1.
[20:56] DXBlair: its a placement poll..not a countdown idiot
[SIG design by Valuna]
Signature
	Image

Cancel

Quote by DarthasThere will never be more data because the question has no starting point.

Why not? Scientists might somehow reach to a conclusion that there was some bird, who was not quite like a chicken, but over the years, became a chicken(...lol) and some time in between they can make a fuzzy decision and thus assign a 'starting point' to this argument(in a manner which I've told in previous post) as to whether chicken came first or egg. And that's what I said, my previous comment argued which point should be assigned as starting point and concluded saying that we'll need more data of evolution of chicken.

but in case the original post was more like the traditional non-sense no-conclusion light-hearted question which you think for a while saying, "Hey.. yeah we can't really tell.. well I guess it's one or the other thing for one or the other reason(the reason itself being too simplistic in most cases), then the answer is both.. cuz in this sense both are just equally likely cuz the question defines them to be so.. not useful :\

Quote by DarthasToE(theory of evolution) mentions several times that mutations and evolution is possible while an egg is laid, prior to hatching due to the structure of DNA. The most logical answer would be that the egg was laid and what hatched wasn't what everyone expected it to be, said subject then laid more eggs of it's kind which gradually started processes. Science focuses on more material things though and the beginning of all Life usually starts with an egg.
Similar to the all famous chart of how humans evolved from apes, it didn't happen all in 1 day. Evolution occured only to forward survival for the 'oddball' community who chose to live outside the norm of the species.

^ I'd already considered this things (and even more, in the comment) when I'd posted the previous comment.

Quote by Darthas[color=#D8F781]In strict sense, the only way to find out the 'answer' is to look at how Life began, how it started and what was the reason for how Life came into the world. In Christianity, people refer to themselves as 'Children of God' - because they believe God made them in His image. Following that line of thought, one could say: God is how Life started.


While sometimes undeniable (like other theories e.g. the theory that says the world came into existence a second ago suddenly along with 'false' memories in your brains and behavior of universe is such that it just supports us believing in those memories), is not too useful for benefit oh humankind. If we get a quick easy answer 'God made it'(whether it is true or not) to every question we ask then we wouldn't have made progress in medicine.

Quote by DarthasIt's less logical to assume chickens came first as they have no ancestors pre-dating their existence outside of the oviparous species.

Oh but if we are to believe theory of evolution, something had to be before chicken which evolved into it over a very long time (in linear ways(as shown by misleading monkey to man diagram) or non-linear multidimensional ones) into a chicken. And at some point over this period, (as I said in my previous comment) we can make a fuzzy decision claiming that this particular stage's species is more closer to chicken that it was to its ancestor.. to a degree which (as I've mentioned and explained in previous comment) is more than or equal to the degree of likeness of that stage's egg and current chicken egg and thus leading us to conclude concretely that chicken came first. But there's a chance that it can be less than the said degree of likeness and it'll mean that chicken came first. So for this, we'll need to know the likeness of that stage's chicken as well as egg. i.e. we'll need more data.
This data, I guess can be actual fossils... which I think will be very rare.. or else maybe they'll do complex science stuff like analysis of DNA of available fossils or something to simulate evolution of at least one type of chicken from at least one place on earth and hoping that the generated model will be accurate, we can at least claim with certainty whether the chicken/egg came first in that area at least. But more data is necessary.. and much more than that, a reason to conduct such an expensive operation on something so seemingly trivial.[/color]

Darthas

Retired Moderator

Darthas

レキシコン

Cancel

Quote: Why not? Scientists might somehow reach to a conclusion that there was some bird, who was not quite like a chicken, but over the years, became a chicken(...lol) and some time in between they can make a fuzzy decision and thus assign a 'starting point' to this argument(in a manner which I've told in previous post) as to whether chicken came first or egg. And that's what I said, my previous comment argued which point should be assigned as starting point and concluded saying that we'll need more data of evolution of chicken.

but in case the original post was more like the traditional non-sense no-conclusion light-hearted question which you think for a while saying, "Hey.. yeah we can't really tell.. well I guess it's one or the other thing for one or the other reason(the reason itself being too simplistic in most cases), then the answer is both.. cuz in this sense both are just equally likely cuz the question defines them to be so.. not useful :\

What?

Nobody was describing the literal situation on whether there was really a bird or not. When I said the question has no starting point, it means there is no real way to find out since the starting could very well be the ending. You don't 'assign' your own starting point to circular repetitive statements. It's the same as saying Circles have edges just because you wanted it to or assigned one to it.

The question doesn't define anything by the way, it's been stated several times already in past discussions.

Quote: I'd already considered this things (and even more, in the comment) when I'd posted the previous comment.

Darting general statements instead of points doesn't really hold water.

Quote: While sometimes undeniable (like other theories e.g. the theory that says the world came into existence a second ago suddenly along with 'false' memories in your brains and behavior of universe is such that it just supports us believing in those memories), is not too useful for benefit oh humankind. If we get a quick easy answer 'God made it'(whether it is true or not) to every question we ask then we wouldn't have made progress in medicine.

Source?
By the way if people want to believe in God, you should let them - I'm not religious so you can argue with them when they get here. If they ever do.

Quote: Oh but if we are to believe theory of evolution, something had to be before chicken which evolved into it over a very long time (in linear ways(as shown by misleading monkey to man diagram) or non-linear multidimensional ones) into a chicken. And at some point over this period, (as I said in my previous comment) we can make a fuzzy decision claiming that this particular stage's species is more closer to chicken that it was to its ancestor.. to a degree which (as I've mentioned and explained in previous comment) is more than or equal to the degree of likeness of that stage's egg and current chicken egg and thus leading us to conclude concretely that chicken came first. But there's a chance that it can be less than the said degree of likeness and it'll mean that chicken came first. So for this, we'll need to know the likeness of that stage's chicken as well as egg. i.e. we'll need more data.
This data, I guess can be actual fossils... which I think will be very rare.. or else maybe they'll do complex science stuff like analysis of DNA of available fossils or something to simulate evolution of at least one type of chicken from at least one place on earth and hoping that the generated model will be accurate, we can at least claim with certainty whether the chicken/egg came first in that area at least. But more data is necessary.. and much more than that, a reason to conduct such an expensive operation on something so seemingly trivial.

Quote: Evolution occured only to forward survival for the 'oddball' community who chose to live outside the norm of the species.

[20:54] Lexicon: I may be 3rd place in the popularity poll but at NASA, the # order is 3>2>1.
[20:56] DXBlair: its a placement poll..not a countdown idiot
[SIG design by Valuna]
Signature
	Image

Cancel

Quote by DarthasWhat?

Nobody was describing the literal situation on whether there was really a bird or not.

And that's why this argument has been going on for so long, I think just assigning it as starting point will solve the issue. To which so say:

Quote by DarthasWhen I said the question has no starting point, it means there is no real way to find out since the starting could very well be the ending. You don't 'assign' your own starting point to circular repetitive statements. It's the same as saying Circles have edges just because you wanted it to or assigned one to it.

That's because most people think that the question of chicken or egg is just as abstract as popular paradoxes and abstract concepts like circle having edges. Abstract concepts can be 'defined' to be unsolvable (like one way to define a circle or any doodly graph is 'a closed 2-d structure without edges' but in reality presence of such structure is impossible and if you go to atomic levels, then our world becomes discrete with edges and all.. sorry for diverting from topic, but thought this was necessary) We don't assign starting points to circular repetitive statements indeed. But I insist that chicken-egg thing Isn't per se such a statement and we Can assign a starting point.
[color=#D8F781]The question doesn't define anything by the way, it's been stated several times already in past discussions.


by 'define', I meant in what way did the question consider the issue: The 'abstract' way in which starting point is not assignable or the more realistic view which I wrote.. so.. i guess it was more of the former case?

Quote: [color=#D8F781]Darting general statements instead of points doesn't really hold water.

What does the phrase 'darting a statement' mean (I don't know much English)? Did you mean avoiding to answer (which I don't think I have) ? or did you mean targeting selective points and making a different meaning of it (which I don't think I've done either)
[color=#D8F781]Source?
By the way if people want to believe in God, you should let them - I'm not religious so you can argue with them when they get here. If they ever do.

Quote: [color=#D8F781]Evolution occured only to forward survival for the 'oddball' community who chose to live outside the norm of the species.

[/color][/color][/color][/color]

yeah... i had.. already considered.. that.. but to which you've already said don't dart general statements... and i'm not sure what that meant..

edit: hey mt deleted glitched my reply to your 'source?' quote and it was a big paragraph and I'm not gonna type it again! DX ok, ok.. this is what I'd written: no source, just my thoughts, do we even need source? isn't it common knowledge?

Darthas

Retired Moderator

Darthas

レキシコン

Cancel

Discussions do need sources if you're gonna quote them that way, yes.

I know you're saying you don't think it's circular repetitive. Don't give people more credit than they deserve, a lot of people miss the point of the saying. It never discussed anything in literal sense, it's a saying that was responsible for deriving more in-depth knowledge on other areas. This is also why I'm asking you what starting point you're talking about - because there is no starting point for general statements.
We're not on the same page.

The undefined question is the TT - in the context I'm mentioning it in.

Thoughts are not sources, all 'common knowledge' was made out of evidence as to how something happened. As good as science is for providing solutions to nature's unsolved mysteries and inquiries - Some things aren't able to be solved due to lack of evidence - something science adheres to and is based entirely on. The reason I believe no answer is yet found to the TT is because future generations of people don't immerse themselves into seeking information on debatable, cross-wired and unverifiable knowledge that everyone, including the religious, groundless enjoy disregarding as authentic or credible.

The TT is talking about which came first, however there's no universal agreement for several reasons. If you're as learned as you say, you should already know why and know what I've been saying the past 3 replies.

Darting general statements is taking something said and doing it to death lol

[20:54] Lexicon: I may be 3rd place in the popularity poll but at NASA, the # order is 3>2>1.
[20:56] DXBlair: its a placement poll..not a countdown idiot
[SIG design by Valuna]
Signature
	Image

Cancel

Quote by DarthasDiscussions do need sources if you're gonna quote them that way, yes.

it was just my idle opinion, which might be loosely based on some things i've read over the years, but nothing in particular.. too lazy to find source -.-

Quote by Darthas
[color=#D8F781]I know you're saying you don't think it's circular repetitive. Don't give people more credit than they deserve, a lot of people miss the point of the saying. It never discussed anything in literal sense, it's a saying that was responsible for deriving more in-depth knowledge on other areas. This is also why I'm asking you what starting point you're talking about - because there is no starting point for general statements.
We're not on the same page. [color=#D8F781]The undefined question is the TT - in the context I'm mentioning it in.

Ah I see.. the context was in general sense :o

Quote by Darthas
[color=#D8F781]Thoughts are not sources, all 'common knowledge' was made out of evidence as to how something happened. As good as science is for providing solutions to nature's unsolved mysteries and inquiries - Some things aren't able to be solved due to lack of evidence - something science adheres to and is based entirely on. The reason I believe no answer is yet found to the TT is because future generations of people don't immerse themselves into seeking information on debatable, cross-wired and unverifiable knowledge that everyone, including the religious, groundless enjoy disregarding as authentic or credible.


[foll. text is off topic

Spoiler (show)


Yeah, true that science doesn't value anything much without evidence. But certainly it does register millions of unproved ideas such as these hoping that some day, when we have enough data, at least one can be proved.. and maybe other can be disproved(Even disproving of ideas can be very useful as they can point out flaws in a complete line of thinking which itself might be based on some loose facts, and finding flaws in those can lead to new discoveries as well), so I just feel I should share my idle ideas whenever I can, even on a random anime site cuz someone somewhere might read them and develop some new ideas or say something about it that makes me develop new ones. And some people don't like to think hard about things.. not challenging widely accepted(even though unfounded) facts just cuz it's so much of a hassle. But oh well, to each his own, they might be good at things other than seeking information... like remembering information without necessarily questioning it.. those people get good jobs >.>

]

Quote by Darthas
[color=#D8F781]The TT is talking about which came first, however there's no universal agreement for several reasons. If you're as learned as you say, you should already know why and know what I've been saying the past 3 replies.

Did I mistakenly say I'm well learned? Don't trust me too much on that even if I do say so.
This is what I've figured out as to what you're saying (which I don't think is what you actually meant) :

Quote by Darthas paraphrasedThe TT phrases the question in a general sense, not literal. The purpose of this is to provide an easily understandable analogy to help understand concept in other areas. So there are just as many arguments on either side of the debate, which itself is the whole reason for its existence: to constantly remind people that things aren't one dimensional.
.
.
But still I think chicken came first (knowing that there are equal no. of counter-arguments)... just for fun.. you gotta side with something, right? no use being on the fence..

That last sentence (from your first reply) kinda seems off from rest of what I understood so not sure if that's what you meant.


[/color][/color][/color][/color]

Darthas

Retired Moderator

Darthas

レキシコン

Cancel

I'm not condemning anything you're saying lol
We're both talking about 2 different aspects of the topic - both of which have their rights and wrongs but not the same thing. None of it is off-topic, it contributes to the TT.

[20:54] Lexicon: I may be 3rd place in the popularity poll but at NASA, the # order is 3>2>1.
[20:56] DXBlair: its a placement poll..not a countdown idiot
[SIG design by Valuna]
Signature
	Image

Oper

Oper

Oper ja nai, Any da!

Cancel

Quote by ValunaIt's almost Easter! Let's discuss the classic question of what came first:

The Chicken...or the Egg?

Don't give short replies. If you are going to reply, please give a reason/argument that supports your decision.

I'll share my theory with you guys. It is a mix of both for me, but if any, it would be the Egg as it is the "new generation" of a species. Knowing that lifeforms adjust to their surroundings with time and with many generations. I would say that the actual "chicken" as we know it, started to exist after many, many generations. So, it would slowly become a chicken with each new egg laid, through natural selection.

Happy Easter days ♥

Im agree with your theory (are you a bilogist or something), well Im a biochemestry student and I can tell you that your answer is very close to reality. First, the egg is a cell, second, ovipar animals came first and third, the Chicken as we known now a days is the result of a lot evolutives process :
1. the microevolution (little changes caused by genetic mutations in populations)
2. specciation (those little changes and the isolation of those populations makes the genetic flood stops and a new specie shall appeared)
3. macroevolution is were our chickens appeared diffrent from the mother specie.

PS: sorry if i have falts in my writing, problem is this is not my native language and I coul give a better answer if I write it in spanish. :)

If you want calcium, DRINK STROWBERRY MILK!!! *Sakata Gintoki*Signature Image

page 1 of 1 13 total items

Back to Religion & Science | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.