It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The chicken or the egg?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Which came first? I think that the egg came first and here is why. The parents of the first chicken I would call proto-chickens. To me, the difference between a chicken and a proto-chicken can be compared to the boundary between blue and violet in the color spectrum. There is no definite line between the two. The first chicken could have differed from its parents by a single gene mutation. We arbitarily define a color just like we arbitrarily define a chicken, an amoeba, or a human. Nature largely works on sliding scales.




posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Diderot
The first chicken would have been born from an egg laid by a protochicken.
Then the chicken would have laid the first chicken egg.

The sequence goes;
1) Last protochicken
2) Last protochicken egg
3) First chicken
4) First chicken egg.

The chicken came first.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Diderot

The chicken did. It already exists, whereas the egg only has the POTENTIAL of becoming maybe a chicken*

*it could break



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Even in creationistic thinking the chicken was created by god then the chicken laid the first egg.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Huh, I guess that's a different way of looking at it. I always looked at it in more general terms. I wasn't thinking specific chicken's egg, so the egg came first because animals were using eggs for reproductive long before they even got out of the water to dry land.

Of course, if you are using the more strict creation view ... then the chicken came first.


edit on 29-6-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Egg.. because before chicken there were non-chickens and the mother of the egg had laid an "mutation" and change of DNA which started the chicken era.. Bacon & Eggs



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Diderot






NEXT!



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: dollukka

And there is the crux of the debate entirely. The question never actually states whether the egg is a chickens egg or a proto-chicken egg, the question is flawed allowing both sides of the argument to be true. If the question was changed to "what came first the chicken or the chicken egg" the answer is more obvious, as only a chicken can lay a chicken egg.
edit on 29-6-2014 by Daavin because: Additions

edit on 29-6-2014 by Daavin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Diderot
Which came first? I think that the egg came first and here is why. The parents of the first chicken I would call proto-chickens. To me, the difference between a chicken and a proto-chicken can be compared to the boundary between blue and violet in the color spectrum. There is no definite line between the two. The first chicken could have differed from its parents by a single gene mutation. We arbitarily define a color just like we arbitrarily define a chicken, an amoeba, or a human. Nature largely works on sliding scales.


Agreed. I have nothing further to add. s&f



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI
Dear Prime Minister, The significant gene mutation occurred in the egg that was laid by the last proto-chicken hen.
Assuming that this egg hatched and had offspring (tip of the hat to mysterioustranger), then I believe that the last proto was a laying hen (proto-hen?), and the first chicken was an egg that hatched and had offspring.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity
Dear Afterinfinity, I have nothing further to add to your nothing further to add except thanks!
My second line thanks you as well.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Diderot
Very good point.
I may have to change my policy again.


edit on 29-6-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Dolluka is right. There were eggs in the world long, long, long before there were chickens. And there was never a first chicken any more than there was a first Homo Sapiens. Evolution doesn't work like that.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Ok I'll play devil's advocate here.
Taking your argument of evolution to the extreme we can state the following.
Chicken are descendants of dinosaurs
Dinosaurs are descendants of early fish
Early fish are descendants of single cell organisms
Single cell organisms are descendants of bacteria that started life on earth.

Bacteria do not lay eggs therefore the chicken came first.
edit on 29-6-2014 by Daavin because: Darn autocorrect



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
The reptile!



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax
Dear Astyanax, I don't understand how you can claim that there was never a first chicken. Since you imply that evolution works, then how do you explain the firstlessness (?) of the chicken? I can imagine no scenario where there was never a first chicken, unless chickens have existed eternally.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax
This is not really about how evolution works, but about how the naming of animal species works.
On evolutionary theory, there was a time when there were no creatures in the world that humans could have called chickens.
Since chickens now exist, there must have been a chicken or chickens who were the first to appear in the world.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Diderot

I believe he's trying to say that a reptile had to lay an egg that hatched a feathered bird that would eventually lay an agg that hatched the first chicken which would have been a global simultaneous hatching of the first chicken therefore removing the ability of 1 ever being first.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

The only real first chicken was the one first bird man saw and said chicken.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Daavin


Chicken are descendants of dinosaurs

That's right. Dinosaurs laid eggs, didn't they?

*


Diderot and DISRAELI: what would you say is the complete, biologically exact definition of 'chicken'?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join