Next Question
Mahalo is adding a tip to all questions that don't offer a tip.
M$2.65 Funded By Mahalo ? |
November 07, 2009 07:35 PM
RSS
In serious terms, the egg came first before the chicken.
-quote-
"It is a question that has vexed philosophers since the Greeks. But it seems we may now have the answer to the beguilingly simple question: "Which came first?" It's the egg.
This reassuring conclusion was the work of an expert panel including a philosopher, geneticist and chicken farmer.
"Whether chicken eggs preceded chickens hinges on the nature of chicken eggs," said panel member and philosopher of science David Papineau at King's College London.
"I would argue it's a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it. If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg. By this reasoning, the first chicken did indeed come from a chicken egg, even though that egg didn't come from chickens."
-end of quote-
Source(s):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/may/26/uknews
Permalink | Report
http://science.howstuffworks.com/genetic-science/question85.htm
Permalink | Report
Source(s):
A class on Geology that I took at CU Boulder, we touched briefly on ancient life for about a week.
Permalink | Report
If by "the egg" you mean eggs in general, then eggs came first, because fish and amphibians and reptiles were laying eggs long before birds, much less chickens, existed.
If, on the other hand, by "egg" you mean a *chicken's* egg, then the chicken came first.
Suppose you've got a dinosaur, and it mates, and the egg and sperm of that mating happened to have a freaky one-in-a-trillion mutation that would cause/enable that offspring to do an immediate evolutionary jump to chicken.
The dinosaur lays an egg containing that embryo... but it's not a chicken egg holding that first chicken embryo... it's a dinosaur egg holding the first chicken embryo.
When that chicken hatches and grows up and lays an egg, *then*, finally, there is the first *chicken's* egg.
What makes that whole question of "which came first, the chicken or the egg" confounding to answer is actually a problem with the meaning and syntax of the English language when used that way in that case, and not a problem with the logic of the concept itself.
Permalink | Report
Why are mice mice but a house isn't hice?
Plural of moose is not meese but goose becomes geese.
Why do lighter warnings state "Do not expose to open flame"?
So this question has been answered in our group of drunken wise men......The chicken had to come first because who was going to sit on the egg to hatch it?
And, if that wasn't enough, how come they find prehistoric everything but eggs? Somewhere there has to be a fossilized egg or one stuck in layers of rock or in a tar pit. These are the possible things we have actually discussed.
There is also the CNN report about the whole discussion being "unscrambled"
I also like this video which explains it all!
Source(s):
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/
Permalink | Report
Things evolved and evolved and eventually a chicken was seen running around!
How did life begin you may ask? Energy created small, small molecules.
Source(s):
Bits and pieces of info I picked up during high school
Permalink | Report
So, what came first, the chicken or the egg? This actually boils down to how you define a chicken egg. Is a chicken egg an egg laid by a chicken or is it an egg that will produce a chicken? The answer will follow directly from the definition you feel is accurate.
If you are looking for a true scientific answer to your question, the answer would be that it's a tie. The theory of evolution points to the chicken an the chicken egg evolving simultaneously. Though both chicken and chicken egg have evolved from birds that were not chickens, in evolution you can never point to one individual that becomes a new species. There will always be a huge body of tiny variations that can't be pinpointed to an exact moment or individual animal.
Helpful Answer?
(4)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
-----quote---
It's a question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Now a team made up of a geneticist, philosopher and chicken farmer claim to have found an answer. It was the egg.
Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal's life.
----end of quote---
Source(s):
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/
Permalink | Report
P.S.
About the word "dogma" although it may seem like an unpleasant choice, they meant it as a "fundamental assumption" not as a "faith based truth."
Source(s):
http://employees.csbsju.edu/HJAKUBOWSKI/classes/Chem%20and%20Society/Cent_D...
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
Mahalo is adding a tip to all questions that don't offer a tip.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Seriously.
Sure evolution of bird species spawned a "chicken", but somewhere in the way back past, there must have been a relative of an egg laying bird that was unable to sustain flight and then later domesticated for the obvious. Now, grammatically speaking, it would be the chicken, right? On the other hand, as a matter of science, a debateable and fun conundrum. No pun intended! I am looking for the scientific answer to this one.... Any takers?
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| November 08, 2009 11:20 AM |
-quote-
"It is a question that has vexed philosophers since the Greeks. But it seems we may now have the answer to the beguilingly simple question: "Which came first?" It's the egg.
This reassuring conclusion was the work of an expert panel including a philosopher, geneticist and chicken farmer.
"Whether chicken eggs preceded chickens hinges on the nature of chicken eggs," said panel member and philosopher of science David Papineau at King's College London.
"I would argue it's a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it. If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg. By this reasoning, the first chicken did indeed come from a chicken egg, even though that egg didn't come from chickens."
-end of quote-
Source(s):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/may/26/uknews
| Asker's Rating: |
• This was a fun one. Egg or chicken and vice versa. Did the chicken come first as defined by its biological makeup? Evolution of that chicken had to lead to an egg, bearing the bio-genetic makeup of a "chicken", assuming there is no interference in reproduction, such as cross breeding with other "like" birds. Bottom line, GREAT ANSWER! Hats off to ya! Thanks for all the great answers and comedy included!
Permalink | Report
Reply
Other Answers (9)
November 07, 2009 07:43 PM
The egg would be first. As evolution works through genetic mutation the first chicken still began within the egg. Mutations occur genetically not after birth. As back up for my logic... http://science.howstuffworks.com/genetic-science/question85.htm
Permalink | Report
Reply
November 07, 2009 09:35 PM
The egg. For example, dinosaurs were born from eggs way before chickens were even around. Reproducing via egg was an early way of adapting to life on land; when all animals lived underwater (as I'm sure you've heard, the officially adopted theory out there is that all life originated from the sea), reproduction and development would occur underwater, but when animals began moving to live on land, their reproduction style began to change. The egg contains essential nutrients the young would need, as well as an all-water environment that their species require to reproduce successfully. The chicken then came later, evolving - as other birds did - from the small feathered animal called the Archaeopteryx.
Source(s):
A class on Geology that I took at CU Boulder, we touched briefly on ancient life for about a week.
Permalink | Report
Reply
November 08, 2009 12:24 AM
What you need to do is refine the question to: "What came first? Eggs, the chickens, or the chicken's egg?" If by "the egg" you mean eggs in general, then eggs came first, because fish and amphibians and reptiles were laying eggs long before birds, much less chickens, existed.
If, on the other hand, by "egg" you mean a *chicken's* egg, then the chicken came first.
Suppose you've got a dinosaur, and it mates, and the egg and sperm of that mating happened to have a freaky one-in-a-trillion mutation that would cause/enable that offspring to do an immediate evolutionary jump to chicken.
The dinosaur lays an egg containing that embryo... but it's not a chicken egg holding that first chicken embryo... it's a dinosaur egg holding the first chicken embryo.
When that chicken hatches and grows up and lays an egg, *then*, finally, there is the first *chicken's* egg.
What makes that whole question of "which came first, the chicken or the egg" confounding to answer is actually a problem with the meaning and syntax of the English language when used that way in that case, and not a problem with the logic of the concept itself.
Permalink | Report
Reply
November 08, 2009 02:04 AM
This may sound really stupid but we have had many tequila night discussions about such things.... Why are mice mice but a house isn't hice?
Plural of moose is not meese but goose becomes geese.
Why do lighter warnings state "Do not expose to open flame"?
So this question has been answered in our group of drunken wise men......The chicken had to come first because who was going to sit on the egg to hatch it?
And, if that wasn't enough, how come they find prehistoric everything but eggs? Somewhere there has to be a fossilized egg or one stuck in layers of rock or in a tar pit. These are the possible things we have actually discussed.
There is also the CNN report about the whole discussion being "unscrambled"
I also like this video which explains it all!
Source(s):
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/
Permalink | Report
Reply
November 08, 2009 08:12 AM
They have found plenty of prehistoric egg shells. The entire egg fossilizing is problematic because once covered over the weight of the muck covering them would have cracked them.
Report
November 08, 2009 06:39 PM
Id love to join in one of your drunken discussion groups one day, I bet thats fun. Hey and I love that video, thanks for the laugh!!
Report
November 08, 2009 05:21 AM
Evolution, in which case the "chicken" came first. Things evolved and evolved and eventually a chicken was seen running around!
How did life begin you may ask? Energy created small, small molecules.
Source(s):
Bits and pieces of info I picked up during high school
Permalink | Report
Reply
November 08, 2009 07:03 AM
As many have pointed out, the concept of egg was establish long before anyone had ever heard of a chicken. This doesn't really answer your intriguing question though, as one has to assume that the question concerns chicken eggs. So, what came first, the chicken or the egg? This actually boils down to how you define a chicken egg. Is a chicken egg an egg laid by a chicken or is it an egg that will produce a chicken? The answer will follow directly from the definition you feel is accurate.
If you are looking for a true scientific answer to your question, the answer would be that it's a tie. The theory of evolution points to the chicken an the chicken egg evolving simultaneously. Though both chicken and chicken egg have evolved from birds that were not chickens, in evolution you can never point to one individual that becomes a new species. There will always be a huge body of tiny variations that can't be pinpointed to an exact moment or individual animal.
Helpful Answer?
(4)
(0)
Helpful: omicron, docbrown, bunnyphuphu, savvy
Tip mr_nicepants for this answer
Reply
November 08, 2009 07:10 AM
Darn you!
Normally I'm the guy who comes up with the most rational, scientific and logical answers, but in this case you said it an inch better enough compared my response to earn a click on 'yes' from me even though that is me over-riding the feelings I have about my own answer.
Hmm... looks like I'm going to have to keep an eye on you.
Report
Normally I'm the guy who comes up with the most rational, scientific and logical answers, but in this case you said it an inch better enough compared my response to earn a click on 'yes' from me even though that is me over-riding the feelings I have about my own answer.
Hmm... looks like I'm going to have to keep an eye on you.
November 08, 2009 08:14 AM
Good one. I was trying to come up with a way of saying how the eggs would have slowly evolved harder and harder shells and be laid earlier in development as opposed to being laid just prior to birth, etc.
This description sort of skips all that. Nicely done.
Report
This description sort of skips all that. Nicely done.
November 08, 2009 06:26 PM
Nice! For this I must reward you with an eggsellent theme song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixgf5SlvOB4
Report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixgf5SlvOB4
November 08, 2009 02:16 PM
A team of geneticist has found the answer to one of the most baffling question. And the answer is "the egg." -----quote---
It's a question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Now a team made up of a geneticist, philosopher and chicken farmer claim to have found an answer. It was the egg.
Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal's life.
----end of quote---
Source(s):
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/
Permalink | Report
Reply
November 09, 2009 04:03 PM
Francis Crick who discovered DNA, along w/James Watson formulated what they called the "Central Dogma of Molecular Biology" in 1957. This says that the you "begin" with the information contained in nucleic acids (DNA & RNA) and amino acid sequences and "go to" proteins. In other words you cannot create an organism without first having its genetic information. Therefore the "Egg" comes before the chicken. P.S.
About the word "dogma" although it may seem like an unpleasant choice, they meant it as a "fundamental assumption" not as a "faith based truth."
Source(s):
http://employees.csbsju.edu/HJAKUBOWSKI/classes/Chem%20and%20Society/Cent_D...
Permalink | Report
Reply
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- sumerhot, November 22, 2009 04:50 AM
- travispatmore, November 22, 2009 04:46 AM
- bjsixsix, November 22, 2009 04:42 AM
- maryellenmurphy, November 22, 2009 04:32 AM
- lorrainesack, November 22, 2009 04:17 AM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
Oh wait, you said "seriously". My bad.