Koo Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 What came first, the Chicken or the Egg? My editing skillz: WHO WAS IT?! Help the Doctor out! ^dds'er in progress =D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Most likely the chicken. He's closest to the door. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nenga Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 The chicken because how would a baby chick find food on its own out in the wild? On that note what do chickens even eat? I mean there was no one to feed them out in the wild. Were they like the chickens in zelda, where you attack them and they fly at you non stop until you're dead or run away? Did they like eat the animals that they killed? Ponies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koo Posted July 31, 2008 Author Share Posted July 31, 2008 Most likely the chicken. He's closest to the door. ;) I like your logic! ^dds'er in progress =D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giordano Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 The egg. Nothing -> Formation of life -> Eggs -> Life "The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wisp Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 The egg: Something-> Something chicken like-> egg (after thousands of years of adaption and change)-> chicken Alternatively, the stupid answer, the egg, you never said what the egg was from. It might be a dino egg. Hegemony-Spain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawks Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 The chicken; in order to have an egg you have to have the chicken... two of them. someone should siggy what life mage said. made me lol. :D sig by Soa.....tip.it times.....art & mediadeviantart/flickr/last.fm/steam/twitter/tumblr/youtube Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenticular_J Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 The egg. It has legs, whereas the chicken has no obvious legs. And everyone knows a chicken can't fly and hold a door open. So obviously the chicken was carried in by the egg. However, the egg walked backwards through the door, as the chicken is heavy. Thus, the egg wins. You can also tell by the medal around its neck, see? catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Italian5kamikaze Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 The chicken; in order to have an egg you have to have the chicken... two of them.Yeah but you could also say you need eggs to hatch the chickens... Quit. PM me if you play The Conduit to exchange friend codes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenticular_J Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 And you can say you need a frying pan to make delicious chicken bacon. :twss: catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abyssalwhip Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 The egg, ever heard of evolution? The chicken came out of the egg of a slightly different species, unnoticeable differences. Your name is "bet you fail", and you're starting a business with your mom? I'm not even going to touch that..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 The egg, ever heard of evolution? Yeah but creationist believers can just say: "The chicken, ever heard of God?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abyssalwhip Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 The egg, ever heard of evolution? Yeah but creationist believers can just say: "The chicken, ever heard of God?" Well, we have proof in evolution, not god. Your name is "bet you fail", and you're starting a business with your mom? I'm not even going to touch that..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenshinjapan Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 The egg, ever heard of evolution? Yeah but creationist believers can just say: "The chicken, ever heard of God?" Well, we have proof in evolution, not god. Not really :| . It's all theory, really no fact in it. YOU! ATTEND TET EVENTS! CLICK HERE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koo Posted July 31, 2008 Author Share Posted July 31, 2008 The egg, ever heard of evolution? Yeah but creationist believers can just say: "The chicken, ever heard of God?" Well, we have proof in evolution, not god. ^dds'er in progress =D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bauke Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Depends on what you define as the first chicken, or the first chicken egg. Did the first chicken in evolution come out of a chicken egg, or did an "animal" lay a chicken egg? Ofcourse evolution doesn't work that way, so it's a question that can't really be answered. Thus it's an irrelevant question. And yeah, I love being serious about silly questions, why? And @ above: evolution is a fact. It has been proven that evolution exists. Also, you wouldn't be able to catch a cold every year if evolution didn't exist. What you're referring at is the evolution theory, which describes how evolution played a role in creating all species that now exist on earth. But let's not turn a dead serious topic in a discussion about evolution. Twitter ||| Google+ ||| Facebook ||| LinkedIn ||| My very interesting weblog about science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abyssalwhip Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Depends on what you define as the first chicken, or the first chicken egg. Did the first chicken in evolution come out of a chicken egg, or did an "animal" lay a chicken egg? Ofcourse evolution doesn't work that way, so it's a question that can't really be answered. Thus it's an irrelevant question. And yeah, I love being serious about silly questions, why? And @ above: evolution is a fact. It has been proven that evolution exists. Also, you wouldn't be able to catch a cold every year if evolution didn't exist. What you're referring at is the evolution theory, which describes how evolution played a role in creating all species that now exist on earth. But let's not turn a dead serious topic in a discussion about evolution. Well, the first organism was a plant like cell, which eventually evolved into a very simple organism, which evolved more until it started laying eggs, which kept going on until a chicken popped out of one of them. @above x2, if god created humans, why are some so god damn stupid? no pun intended Your name is "bet you fail", and you're starting a business with your mom? I'm not even going to touch that..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bauke Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Well, the first organism was a plant like cell, which eventually evolved into a very simple organism, which evolved more until it started laying eggs, which kept going on until a chicken popped out of one of them. Not quite correct. Theory says that the first organism was a prokariotic unicellular organism. Plant-like features were added much more later on in evolution when the first eukaryotes came up. Supossingly cyanobacteria that had been "devoured" due to endocytosis created the first chloroplasts. But really, the first plant-like cells came up much, much later. Twitter ||| Google+ ||| Facebook ||| LinkedIn ||| My very interesting weblog about science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abyssalwhip Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Well, the first organism was a plant like cell, which eventually evolved into a very simple organism, which evolved more until it started laying eggs, which kept going on until a chicken popped out of one of them. Not quite correct. Theory says that the first organism was a prokariotic unicellular organism. Plant-like features were added much more later on in evolution when the first eukaryotes came up. Supossingly cyanobacteria that had been "devoured" due to endocytosis created the first chloroplasts. But really, the first plant-like cells came up much, much later. I think you quoted it wrong. Anyways it was plant-like. IE; having the tiny-est bit of features that seperates it, which sort of branched off from what I remember though I could be wrong. Your name is "bet you fail", and you're starting a business with your mom? I'm not even going to touch that..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 @above x2, if god created humans, why are some so god damn stupid? To make everyone else look good? Depends on what you define as the first chicken, or the first chicken egg. Did the first chicken in evolution come out of a chicken egg, or did an "animal" lay a chicken egg? I believe you hit the nail on the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bauke Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I think you quoted it wrong. Anyways it was plant-like. IE; having the tiny-est bit of features that seperates it, which sort of branched off from what I remember though I could be wrong. Well... all cells look a like in some way. So you could also call it an animal-like cell. The first organism had: -no cell wall -no mitochondria -no chloroplasts -no nucleus ..so it doesn't look like a plant cell at all. More like a bacteria, or an archaea (sort of bacteria, branched of early in evolution). Naturally it's all theory, but basically this is how the proposed tree of life started. I study biology btw, so I oughta now this stuff :P Twitter ||| Google+ ||| Facebook ||| LinkedIn ||| My very interesting weblog about science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabbagad Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 The egg came first. Through evolution the closest possible thing to the chicken would have layed the egg. Depends on what you define as the first chicken, or the first chicken egg. Did the first chicken in evolution come out of a chicken egg, or did an "animal" lay a chicken egg? They're both the same thing. In the examples, you mention the chicken egg at the start of both cycles, which means both are saying the egg came first. [spoiler=My 99s (7)]9,638th to 99 Fletching ~ 29th January 2007 737th to 99 Hunter ~ 2nd July 2007910th to 99 Agility ~ 28th January 200859,467th to 99 Defence ~ 23rd December 200992,762nd to 99 Hitpoints ~ 26th June 2010102,704th to 99 Attack ~ 29th June 2010144,091st to 99 Strength ~ 29th June 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necrobean Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Well isn't "the egg" just an "egg cell", just like humans have, from the chicken? I'd say the chicken would've been first then. ;> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 The egg, ever heard of evolution? Yeah but creationist believers can just say: "The chicken, ever heard of God?" Well, we have proof in evolution, not god. Not really :| . It's all theory, really no fact in it. A theory has facts in it to support its explanation. The theory of evolution deals with how it's suggested to have happened, i.e. through what mechanisms and in what order of emerged species. Geological and biological facts vindicate these explanations, in specific cases almost irrefutably through repeated accumulation of molecular sequence evidence. I don't suppose you'd find transposons, hypervariable amino acids or genetic code redundancy interesting? You're just another victim of the nonense arguments that go on about how "it's just a theory". You should be asking yourself what a theory is (hint: you haven't looked hard enough). As for which came first, it probably would have been the egg, but the whole argument is pedantic as hell. It depends entirely on what you define as "chicken" and as a "chicken egg". Mutations in the germ line would have tipped non-chicken DNA (suspiciously similar to chicken DNA) over the arbitrary line to produce the first "chicken egg" which, with a sperm cell, contributed genetic information to grow up the first "chicken", or should that be "half-chicken". :lol: You can think of this whole debacle as defining 12:00 noon and after as "the afternoon" and everything before as "the morning" and trying to argue with someone that there is some noteworthy difference between 11:59:59 and 12:00:00. Or to demonstrate the point even more, make those times something completely arbitrary like 8:39:42 and 8:39:43. When close together, those points in time are almost indistinguishable and the difference isn't significant at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xvillexvalox Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 It's too late for me now, but I did a speech arguing for egg in Soph. Honors English about this. This page covers it all: http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Which.html Note: I argued for egg because I threw out the possibilities of 2a. and 2c. (from that website) because in the question itself it is implied that a chicken already existed by using the preterit tense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now