-- Posted by noraa at 8:40 am on June 1, 2008 Evolutionarily speaking, the egg came first. Without the egg, there could be no chicken. Chickens don't just appear out of nowhere. It had to hatch. Where did it hatch from? The egg. You could argue that there could be no egg without a chicken, however I disagree. Birds of all different types lay eggs. Perhaps another creature laid the egg, however the combined genes of the parents were such that what came out is now most commonly referred to as a chicken. My point is, the bird that laid the egg can change. Chickens don't just fall onto the earth. Discuss. -- Posted by rosebud at 8:43 am on June 1, 2008 It's an argument in semantics more than anything else. Suppose we alter the question slightly--"Which came first: the chicken or the chicken egg?" What would you say then? -- Posted by noraa at 8:45 am on June 1, 2008 Quote: from rosebud at 8:43 am on June 1, 2008 It's an argument in semantics more than anything else. Suppose we alter the question slightly--"Which came first: the chicken or the chicken egg?" What would you say then? Another creture could lay what is now known as a chicken egg. -- Posted by Micus at 9:08 am on June 1, 2008 Quote: from NoNoNora383 at 11:45 am on June 1, 2008 Quote: from rosebud at 8:43 am on June 1, 2008 It's an argument in semantics more than anything else. Suppose we alter the question slightly--"Which came first: the chicken or the chicken egg?" What would you say then? Another creture could lay what is now known as a chicken egg. Correct. A random genetic mutation would have occurred in the formation of the embryo that would result in a speciation discerning the chicken from anything else. So a non-chicken would be carrying the first genuine chicken in it's body until it lays that egg. -- Posted by piertangent at 9:20 am on June 1, 2008 I enjoy recognizing that every common argument, including this one, generally comes down to semantics, as Rosebud pointed out. -- Posted by Moridin at 11:21 am on June 1, 2008 Quote: from Micus at 7:08 pm on June 1, 2008 Quote: from NoNoNora383 at 11:45 am on June 1, 2008 Quote: from rosebud at 8:43 am on June 1, 2008 It's an argument in semantics more than anything else. Suppose we alter the question slightly--"Which came first: the chicken or the chicken egg?" What would you say then? Another creture could lay what is now known as a chicken egg. Correct. A random genetic mutation would have occurred in the formation of the embryo that would result in a speciation discerning the chicken from anything else. So a non-chicken would be carrying the first genuine chicken in it's body until it lays that egg. Is the construction of the egg itself a result of the embryo's genome or the parent genome? -- Posted by EdgyVeggie at 2:28 pm on June 1, 2008 The question is, "What came first: the chicken or the egg?" Of course, there is no specification that the egg being referred to is a chicken egg. Therefore, since such egg-born animals as dinosaurs came before chickens, the egg came first. -- Posted by marshmellowman at 3:16 pm on June 1, 2008 Perhaps another creature laid the egg, however the combined genes of the parents were such that what came out is now most commonly referred to as a chicken. ^That. That is exactly the idea, which is why I think the egg came first. -- Posted by Corrupted Innocence at 7:51 am on June 2, 2008 I've never actually thought of it like that. So basically what you are actually trying to say is the chicken is a mutation of two animals with the "chicken gene" so to speak. Makes sense because nothing just appears out of thin air. -- Posted by Azzurro at 8:45 am on June 2, 2008 I completely disagree. Evolution. Its simple. Something developed a mutation causing a chicken. The egg played no part. -- Posted by Event Horizon at 1:24 pm on June 2, 2008 I already made this argument like 4 times here. Creature evolves from small simple celled organisms Creature now uses eggs to procreate. Creature slowly evolves, the children in the eggs slowly change over time. After some time, Creature has evolved into a chicken, and chickens continue to be born from eggs. Egg came first. -- Posted by mikeyb at 3:02 pm on June 21, 2008 Perhaps God invented the chicken; then the chicken laid the egg? -- Posted by Uruz 7 at 6:17 am on June 22, 2008 Well, if you're based off evolution . . . the fundamental egg would be a cell, I guess? Therefore a fundamental chicken would be a cell as well . . . Wait . . I'm getting confused .  . lmao . . -- Posted by KatieMD at 7:21 pm on June 24, 2008 First off, why do we say, "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" Surely the chicken produces the egg, but the egg produces a chick which will eventually turn into a chicken. So why don't we say, "What came first, the egg or the chicken?" 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. -- Posted by JustWannaReadStuff at 1:02 pm on June 25, 2008 The same can be applied to those who believe in God, or a higher form of existence. What came first, God or the universe?  If God came before the Universe, where does God exist?  Also, where does God come from?  God would have to have been created by another superior power to even God itself, whether by evolution, or creation. So which came first?  God, or a more powerful God?  And where did the more powerful God come from?