The Chicken and the Egg is a simple yet complicated question. It is a paradox that tests one's logic and reasoning. So list your reason for whatever answer you choose and enlighten us with your reason of choice. 😃

Gay book discussion thread

Quote from you_no_see_me_

this is not about cannibalism...please get back on topic

Quote from Toto

I think it is exactly the topic. I see nothing wrong.

Hey! I saw this question on the Wii's Everybody Vote Channel only recently and the chicken won.

I chose egg just because I believe it to be the first. Every reasoning I come up with works for the other one so meh.

https://twitter.com/Hostile

The egg.

The paradox never mentions if it has to be a CHICKEN egg. Dinosaur eggs existed millions of years before the first chicken appeared.

Edit: Plus, it's impossible to have an individual animal suddenly more into another while it is still alive. Evolution occurs through reproduction, so the first chicken would have to be hatched out of an egg before living. Therefore, the chicken egg (as in the egg containing a chicken) came before the chicken. If you're defining a chicken egg as an egg from a chicken (not a previous species in the evolutionary timeline), then the chicken would have to come first.

ohhh, good one. I never thought of that. BUT, they say Chicken is related to Tyrannosaurus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus

The bone structure.

Gay book discussion thread

Quote from you_no_see_me_

this is not about cannibalism...please get back on topic

Quote from Toto

I think it is exactly the topic. I see nothing wrong.

Hm. Well, if it's only the Tyrannosaurus, then the egg still wins out because the Tyrannosaurus existed in the Cretaceous period. Before that were the Triassic and Jurassic periods (plus the lesser-known, older species, like trilobites), all of which contained dinosaurs that laid eggs.

Wait! I want to change my answer!!! The egg most definitely came first because many reptiles have the ability to lay eggs, and they were around millenia before the evolution of birds. It's probable even ancestors to modern day egg-laying birds were lizards...dinosaurs...wtvr.

I knew I took evo-devo for a reason! ^_^ So I could answer questions like this! 🤢

Oh - check it:

The ability to map characters onto a phylogeny means that noto nly can we find out the direction of evolution of character states but also, that if we are to consider more than one character, we can order their evolutionary appearance. By way of illustration, one frivolous application of this procedure has been to answer the old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? In Fig. 7, we can see that the evolution of the characteristics of chickens is a much more recent event than the evolution of the egg which even antedates the evolution of birds, being present also in the reptiles. Clearly the egg came before the chicken.

Yeah...i looked it up and found a journal article from International Journal of Developmental Biology. 47: 479-490 (2003), page 8.

It's a really great article and goes through all the basics (a semesters worth!) of evo-devo.
/me is a science genius girl 😁

EDIT: I wanted to edit this post and add a great paradox question you may like from a Philosophy of Religion course I totally sucked at. It is the Paradox of the Stone and asks:

If God is an omnipotent being, can He create a stone which He cannot lift??

Totally discount belief in God and assume for the argument that God exists. 😕

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/heardtheowl/lovesweat.jpg[/img]

Quote from heardtheowl

EDIT: I wanted to edit this post and add a great paradox question you may like from a Philosophy of Religion course I totally sucked at. It is the Paradox of the Stone and asks:

If God is an omnipotent being, can He create a stone which He cannot lift??

Totally discount belief in God and assume for the argument that God exists. 😕

I think someone tried to answer that paradox in the "Believing in God" topic in this forum... Honestly, I didn't understand the answer, though. It sounded like one of those "well, God is unbounded by our laws so He can do stuff like that! <_<" answers.

As an atheist, I can't really answer that, 'cos it's rather obvious what my answer will be...

Chicken, there has to be chicken to lay the chicken egg. The first bird to evolve into the first CHICKEN laid the first "chicken egg" so the chicken came first. If you go down to the cellular level....micro organisms had to evolve before they can actually become complex enough to reproduce sexually and make eggs.

** [color=green]Mad people either have no sense or too many extra senses... [/color]**
[color=red]On the net, men are men, women are men and children are the FBI. =D[/color]

Egg. Why?

I believe in evolution, so everything evolved from single cell organisms. Eventually, evolution provided us with something that was 99.99999% chicken and that almost-chicken laid an egg. From this egg is hatched a 100% chicken. I'm willing to call this egg, laid by an almost-chicken, and that hatches a chicken, a chicken egg.

@heardtheowl

The article you quoted doesn't seem to answer this question... I think this question which has been asked forever implies "What came first, the chicken, or the chicken egg?" although the "chicken egg" isn't explicitly stated. Of course the first ever egg was laid before the first ever chicken was born. After all, dinosaurs laid eggs and they appeared quite a bit before chickens.

Quote from frustratedguy109

Egg. Why?

I believe in evolution, so everything evolved from single cell organisms. Eventually, evolution provided us with something that was 99.99999% chicken and that almost-chicken laid an egg. From this egg is hatched a 100% chicken. I'm willing to call this egg, laid by an almost-chicken, and that hatches a chicken, a chicken egg.

Got me there.

** [color=green]Mad people either have no sense or too many extra senses... [/color]**
[color=red]On the net, men are men, women are men and children are the FBI. =D[/color]

Oh...I know what came first, it's the Chicken. Using both religious and scientific evidence, we can say:

1. Some small bacteria mutated into some weird chicken fish which mutated again into a Dino chicken which mutated again into a chicken.
2. God created Chicken.

Gay book discussion thread

Quote from you_no_see_me_

this is not about cannibalism...please get back on topic

Quote from Toto

I think it is exactly the topic. I see nothing wrong.

My view on this is very similar to that of frustratedguy... but I have one problem with that. When does that "almost chicken" become a chicken? after all there is a good number of different varieties or races or whatever you'd want to call them of chickens. And probably there is a genetic difference of at least 0.0001% between each of them, right?
So can't we call that pre-chicken another different variety of chickens that is now extinct?
Anyway, in the end, I find this question to be rather pointless. Because who cares which came first?
I don't... as long as I can still eat them both at the same time lol.

Quote from Nelo_Neko

Chicken, there has to be chicken to lay the chicken egg. The first bird to evolve into the first CHICKEN laid the first "chicken egg" so the chicken came first. If you go down to the cellular level....micro organisms had to evolve before they can actually become complex enough to reproduce sexually and make eggs.

But I went even further down than the cellular level - all the way to molecular - base pair sequencing is what was looked at as well as gene expression patterns.

Yea - molecular develpmental bio major with emphasis on microbiology and developmental evolution. Beat that! lol

mes es sooo srmart! Not. jk

Quote from frustratedguy109

Egg. Why?

I believe in evolution, so everything evolved from single cell organisms. Eventually, evolution provided us with something that was 99.99999% chicken and that almost-chicken laid an egg. From this egg is hatched a 100% chicken. I'm willing to call this egg, laid by an almost-chicken, and that hatches a chicken, a chicken egg.

@heardtheowl

The article you quoted doesn't seem to answer this question... I think this question which has been asked forever implies "What came first, the chicken, or the chicken egg?" although the "chicken egg" isn't explicitly stated. Of course the first ever egg was laid before the first ever chicken was born. After all, dinosaurs laid eggs and they appeared quite a bit before chickens.

I agree - which is why I voted for chicken and then rethought my answer since it was not specified. lol

Still totally up in the air in the field of evo-devo. Actually, this question is too advanced for the field since it is not a truly established science accepted across all biological paradigms.

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/heardtheowl/lovesweat.jpg[/img]

Quote from xObscurexOmenx

The egg.

The paradox never mentions if it has to be a CHICKEN egg. Dinosaur eggs existed millions of years before the first chicken appeared.

Edit: Plus, it's impossible to have an individual animal suddenly more into another while it is still alive. Evolution occurs through reproduction, so the first chicken would have to be hatched out of an egg before living. Therefore, the chicken egg (as in the egg containing a chicken) came before the chicken. If you're defining a chicken egg as an egg from a chicken (not a previous species in the evolutionary timeline), then the chicken would have to come first.

You have opened my eyes! I was gonna vote for chicken, but you have definitely succeeded in persuading me, and quite easily too. It amazes me how I've never thought of dinosaur eggs 😛

[img]http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa229/azrinirza/makotoshinkai1_zpse3901c5a.gif[/img]
Everyday I'm tumblin'

Perhaps you are taken it too literal? They say which came first, the chicken{meaning the producer of the egg} and the Egg{the Egg it self}

They are symbolic of a paradoxical philosophy.

On is the paradox logic: Chicken makes egg, but chicken came from egg. If chicken came from Egg, then egg came from the chicken......

Gay book discussion thread

Quote from you_no_see_me_

this is not about cannibalism...please get back on topic

Quote from Toto

I think it is exactly the topic. I see nothing wrong.