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 question that gets us all in confusion, what came first the chicken or the egg?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   
What came first the chicken or the egg, this has confused alot of us and i dont know why its something very simple and yet we still dont know the answer to it, but i have. out of the weeks and months of watching the science channel i have found the answer.
so what did come first the chicken or the egg? its the egg. they are two differ kind of answers and they both have to deal with the egg.

befor land animals there were water animals thier eggs were soft and transparent but as evolution went on they started laying eggs on land and the animals grew more addaped to land but for thier off spring to grow their eggs also needed to evolve and the eggs started to make a hader shell around it and if that never happened we wont even have the chickens we have today nor and animal that we have today.

the seconed part would be, lets say we have 4 birds they are all different so they reproduce and another bird enters the web of life differ from its mom and dad and the other 2 birds reproduce and there is another bird that looks differ from its mom, dad and the other 3 birds that just came and the two new birds reproduce and they get the bird that we call a chicken.

*note: the table i made realy explaned it but it is very big this is just a short run down, the real life this took millions of years to happen with many differ birds all different from one other the reason it took millions of years is that the new birds had to find a differ bird and so on and so forth

to get the chicken from those 2 birds it needed to have the egg to make the bird that we call the chicken, i said it was simple but in its own way to the birds and other animals this is a long and complicated prosess.

so now if some one said what came first the chicken or the egg u can tell them the answer is the egg and if they dont believe u tell them to look at this forum or make a copy of it what ever makes u happy

[edit on 29-8-2006 by The Parasite]




posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 02:19 AM
link   
I think the whole point of the old "chicken and the egg" question really has nothing to do with chickens... it has to do with how the first animals, organisms etc. were created.

At some point along Earth's evolutionary journey, a species started to lay eggs as a means of reproduction. In my opinion, I think this change had to have happened as a direct result from an external source. This particular organism was genetically manipulated, it's biology changed right down to the cellular level to facilitate egg-laying reproduction. Evolutionists say that these types of changes happened gradually over time... and that's convenient but ultimately, you have to go back to that first organism that exhibited egg-laying characteristics. It went from cell-division to egg-laying... or maybe the species was capable of sexual reproduction, at one point. How did that change happen? The easy answer is the species adapted.... but ONE organism had to make that change so that its offspring would inherit that change. And my point that this change must've been such a huge and complex biological operation that I don't think it could've happened by chance.

Bottom line, I think the chicken was created and then manipulated to lay eggs. That is the simplest answer... and you know what they say about the simplest answer....



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 02:33 AM
link   
The egg came first; some animal that vaguely resembled a chicken laid an egg, this egg suffered from genetic mutation and evolution, and when hatched came out a bit more like a chicken than the mother did - this process reapeated until you got a chicken .



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by CIS001
The egg came first; some animal that vaguely resembled a chicken laid an egg, this egg suffered from genetic mutation and evolution, and when hatched came out a bit more like a chicken than the mother did - this process reapeated until you got a chicken .


Wrong. The genetic-mutation aspect of the evolution theory is flawed. Experiments with fruit-flies showed this. When exposed to high levels of radiation, these fruit-flies grew deformed... their growth was stunted, they were blind etc. They even passed these deformities on through their children. For all intents and purposes, these fruit-flies were genetically mutated. But those offspring were still fundamentally and genetically true fruit-flies. Further, those same deformed offspring...even generations down the line were able to breed with the original parent stock of fruit-flies, if they were able to breed at all (keep in mind the deformities).

By your logic, the children of the radiation victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are part of another species of human. That isn't so... they're just deformed through the inherited traits caused by the atomic bombs' radiation.

[edit on 29-8-2006 by firebat]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Which came first the chicken or the egg?

I say neither. I think if we were to go back to the beginning we would find neither the chicken or the egg, but in fact meet the species that the chickens evolve into, which journeyed back through time to see which came first (the chicken or the egg). There curiosity would be great enough to know where they came from that once they could travel through time to the beginning that they would.

So, my answer is neither the chicken or the egg, but the species the chickens become that travelled back in time, and found no chickens, and no eggs.

[edit on 29-8-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
okay what u said did not make any sence at all

during the begining there was merine animals then came the ambibians and kinda of insects, the thousand of years later came reptiles, then came mamals and birds.

so if u go to the begining where animals first reaching land dont expect to see lions, tigers, birds ect. it would be mostly waste land cuz trees didnt start forming when large amphibians were walking the land.

im still sticking with my answer



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Parasite
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
okay what u said did not make any sence at all

during the begining there was merine animals then came the ambibians and kinda of insects, the thousand of years later came reptiles, then came mamals and birds.

so if u go to the begining where animals first reaching land dont expect to see lions, tigers, birds ect. it would be mostly waste land cuz trees didnt start forming when large amphibians were walking the land.

im still sticking with my answer


I assume you were referring to the post immediately preceding yours... if so, he was obviously kidding.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Parasite
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
okay what u said did not make any sence at all


Are you sure?


so if u go to the begining where animals first reaching land dont expect to see lions, tigers, birds ect. it would be mostly waste land cuz trees didnt start forming when large amphibians were walking the land.


So, if the evovled chickens were to go back to before life existed and observe how life came unto existance before chickens or eggs, yet they are there, hence what came first was neither the chicken or the egg, but the Zenith of their evolutionary path that ventured back in time, and they are neither chicken, nor egg, but do/did precede both.

[edit on 3-9-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   
The chicken came with egg. The chicken had the egg in it all along... so technically they both arrived at the same time.

makes sense to you?? somehow that has always made sense to me, but nobody ever seems to see it my way



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by firebat

Wrong. The genetic-mutation aspect of the evolution theory is flawed. Experiments with fruit-flies showed this. When exposed to high levels of radiation, these fruit-flies grew deformed... their growth was stunted, they were blind etc. They even passed these deformities on through their children.

[edit on 29-8-2006 by firebat]


Thats not quite how Genetic Mutation works. It doesnt need superman radiation to change the DNA and RNA of an individual. Genetic Mutation can occur from exposure to certain mutagens, viruses, errors in the copying of material during cell division or during Meiosis.

Ofcourse radiation wont mutate dna, it breaks down things, not alters them.

And if you dont believe in Genetic Mutation, tell people with Sickle cell then that theyre condition doesnt exist. After all, thats an outcome of genetic mutation that was caused by th evirus, that wrote itself into the persons very dna



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
It's really one of those questions where the literal answer isn't important, it's the process you use to come to a conclusion that tells about your personality and thought processes. Like when a tree falls in the forest...

My answer, the frying pan came first.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Never did I once say I didn't believe in genetic-mutation... I just don't believe it plays a part in evolution.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by firebat
Never did I once say I didn't believe in genetic-mutation... I just don't believe it plays a part in evolution.


Well, I suppose the obvious question is what does underlie evolution? We know that DNA underlies heredity, that DNA copying causes errors (one form of mutation), these errors can produce good, bad, or neutral effects on an individual.

For example, a new sub-species of bacterium that was found to have developed the ability to digest nylon is suggested to be the result of mutation. What other method enabled this bacterium to metabolise a man-made substance first synthesised in 1935? If the mutation occured 500 yrs ago it was deadly, however, since 1935, it was beneficial and adaptive. Natural selection in action.

There are also studies that involve using a single bacterium that is raised to a large population via monoculture. We find that genetic diversity increases from a single individual. As there is no sexual reproduction, we would assume that mutations caused this increase in genetic variability.

[edit on 3-9-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   
No the bactria that starting eating the nylon could also be because it adaped to its enviroment. what u are saying is like abes lost thier hair and had a desposable thumbs because it made a tool, no the abes became us because it had to adapt to certin changes and its enviroment.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:02 AM
link   
I agree totally with CIS001 in that the EGG came first. If a chicken comes from an egg then its a chicken, it doesn't matter what kind of creature laid the egg in the first place. Ive seen quails come from chicken eggs and also chickens with quails brains and vice versa - Genetics are the key.



G



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Parasite
No the bactria that starting eating the nylon could also be because it adaped to its enviroment. what u are saying is like abes lost thier hair and had a desposable thumbs because it made a tool, no the abes became us because it had to adapt to certin changes and its enviroment.


where adaptation = evolution caused by a mutation/genetic change, yeah.

I like the idea of disposable thumbs though.

[edit on 4-9-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   
wasn't there a debate on this a few months back? If we read the question to mean "which came first, the chicken, or the chicken egg?", then the answer is the chicken.

The argument is that at some point some creature that was "nearly" a chicken laid an egg, which contained an embryo that, due to genetic mutation, grew up to become a chicken.

That "nearly chicken" (I'll call it a "chocken" ), laid probably laid many eggs before and since.. all of them accurately described as chocken eggs. At the moment the egg was laid, a chicken didn't yet exist, so it couldn't be a chicken egg.

The first chicken laid the first chicken egg.

that's what I reckon anyway



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Yea but without the egg that holds the chicken thier wouldnt be chickens. the birds that evovled into the chicken wasnt a chicken. the egg had to have come first becasue without it thier wouldnt be no chicken. also with the first shelled egg, if it never evolved to creat the shell animals today wont be here.

The egg came first.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Well, I think that settles it... the parasite has brilliantly "cracked" this one.

Case-closed.

[edit on 5-9-2006 by firebat]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:16 AM
link   
An observation: adaptation is in fact a key factor of speciation/evolution. Adaptation alone it's not necesarly evolution. Any way, evolution doesn't take place in lets say 3 generations! So the children in hiroshima are not a different species. However, left alone and isolated, in 10k years, you will probably end up with a new one.

Now back to the topic
The true nature of the question is not related to the chiken and the egg, but to the creation. Here, by creation, I do not reffer to creationist/ID theory. This question dates from ancient times


The earliest reference to the dilemma is found in Plutarch's Moralia, in the books titled "Table Talk," in a series of arguments based on questions posed in a symposium. Under the section entitled, "Whether the hen or the egg came first," the discussion is introduced in such a way as to suggest that the origin of the dilemma was even older
en.wikipedia.org...

The chicken and the egg was a handy example in that times.
It is about creation because if we assume no evolution (Darwin was not known back then
) and no creator, then logicaly, you can't decide which one of them was first. So, if you want, this question was posed to prove/question that the world is not static but it evolves.

However, I don't agree with what wikipedia says about the (biological) answer. The egg is only a by-product of the sexual reproduction, so if one traces the problem to its origins (ie the apparition of sexual reproduction) will get to the meiosis in which a cell devides in 4 other cell bearing only half of the genetic information. By recombining these kind of cells originating from different individuals you'll get new cells similar to the first ones. But the point is that those 4 cells behave like eggs/sperm and all originate from a single one. So the "chicken" was first since it had to divide into those 4 cells.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join