Which came first...

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Thanatos You're asking a hard question. I can see external fertilization in sponges and corals turning into development of young inside protected cavities and the gradual improvement of this model. The thing that confuses me is the origin of the haploid/diploid cycle common to most forms of life. Sperm and eggs are merely the human haploid phase. Bacteria sometimes come together and swap genetic information in a process called conjugation. Perhaps it went one step further and they merged completely for a time, and perhaps being a bigger cell with dual nuclei helped somehow with some periodic stress factor. It must have been a gradual shift from long term conjugation to complete nuclear fusion...and there are slime molds with multiple nuclei within a single membrane...and there we go. This is outside my field of expertise and I'm speculating, but I think I see how it could have happened.

Possibly, gallo could clear your doubt based on his speculation of evolution as the reason for origin of fesh specie's appearence! Basically, I am not a biologist .

[freedom13]

..the chicken or the egg? I say the chicken, because the egg can't hatch if there is no one to sit on it and keep it warm.

The chicken and egg are one; all living beings are born in to existence.

NOVA: Life's Greatest Miracle with - Yahoo! Video

[Chris]

Quote by: prejudged_Fire ...the chicken or the egg?

...the dinosaur.

[another day]

It's not so simply as whether the chicken or the egg came first. It's a crawling morphing ascent into existence.

[Chris]

probably the right answer:

As species change over time, in the process of evolution, the first modern chicken was the offspring of the last direct ancestor of domestic chickens to not share that classification (likely the Red Junglefowl). Therefore, a non-chicken did, in fact, lay the first egg.[13]

Chicken or the egg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ZNFYRH]

Chris

I still disagree.

Posts 12 to 21 in the thread danced around this very point.

Since you have no way of knowing if it was the DNA in the egg that was mutated, or the DNA in the fertilizing sperm that was mutated, you can't say the egg came first.

What you can say, with certainty, is that what came out of that egg was a mutant... the modern chicken.

[gallo]

In fact, the question is fundamentally meaningless.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Since you have no way of knowing if it was the DNA in the egg that was mutated, or the DNA in the fertilizing sperm that was mutated, you can't say the egg came first.

But of course, mutations always happen in the parents (DUH). And those mutations are in reproductive cells that produce gametes. What part of evolutionary theory don't you understand?

What you can say, with certainty, is that what came out of that egg was a mutant... the modern chicken.

Why do you think that the modern chicken is a mutant. Certainly, it has characteristics that may not exist in the ancestral species (the Red Jungle Fowl), but undesirable characteristics were eliminated by selective breeding (known as artificial selection). We don't know if chickens arose from the capture and breeding of adult Red Jungle Fowl, or if the original stock came from nest robbing, whether eggs or chicks. But there is no question that chickens are the result of selective breeding by mankind.

Again, the question is meaningless. Probably based on ignorance.

[gallo]

Quote by: Kuldeep Possibly, gallo could clear your doubt

Probably, if the question were actually relevant to the topic.

based on his speculation of evolution as the reason for origin of fesh specie's appearence!

What speculation are you talking about? What is a "fesh specie's"? Where did I discuss the origin of a "fesh specie's"?

Basically, I am not a biologist .

Duh!

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Chris ...the dinosaur.

A chicken is a dinosaur.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: gallo What part of evolutionary theory don't you understand?

Do you have a medical problem that forces you to be this way?

Do you completely lack the ability to be civil?

Quote by: gallo But of course, mutations always happen in the parents (DUH). And those mutations are in reproductive cells that produce gametes.

I will say it again, then, with different words.

It takes a sperm and an egg to create a creature.

The creature we are talking about is the modern chicken (MC).

With 0 mutation, an MC sperm and an MC egg make an MC creature.

But at some point, a nonMC sperm and a nonMC egg made an MC creature.

This means that either the sperm or the egg had in it the mutation that resulted in the MC.

The egg is only half of the equation. It could not have been a nonMC sperm and an MC egg to make the MC creature, because the egg is only half of it.

The first MC laid the first MC egg.

So the chicken came first.

Sometimes, gallo, these things are for fun. Being the one who comes in kicking the castle in the sandbox won't validate whatever issues you have in your real life.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: prejudged_Fire ...the chicken or the egg? I say the chicken, because the egg can't hatch if there is no one to sit on it and keep it warm.

I did not read the other responses to this old question. But the question is basically missleading.

The egg and the chicken are the same thing, not really two different "speicies" or whatever. Just two parts of a circular cycle. The chicken is inside the egg and the eggs are inside a chicken (untill layed or hatched ). It is just one identity at different stages of growth. Being that eggs are just stages of a chicken they happen at the same time, not before or after, as they are not "they" but only one thing. One thing containing all potentals of the other. Which other is not another.

Also, a turtle egg can hatch without a turtle sitting on it. And all eggs and egg laying forms of reproduction is linked back to the first "whatever" it was that laid eggs, perhaps some sort of fish. As an extended evolution of dividing in half to reproduce, in this case the egg divided from the parent, because a creature composed of lots of single cells could not split them all at once but somehow developed an new process for bodies composed of many cells. And the process happen in the dna before they happen in the more advanced forms of reproduction.

Which reminds me, a tree falling makes no sound only a vibration, and an eardrum must be present to pick up that virbation so that a brain can determine how to interpret the noise as being a sound.

Zen is easy.

[EnragedParrot]

The question is meaningless. No protochicken ever laid an egg containing a fully modern chicken. A protochicken laid an egg containing another protochicken. Perhaps this baby protochicken had slightly smaller wings, or an ever so slightly smaller beak, but it was a protochicken nonetheless.

The differences between successive generations are so minute that the offspring are virtually indistinguishable from the parent. It is only by gazing back down the evolutionary "tree of life" over hundreds, even thousands, of generations and observing the diverging branches that we are able to distinguish between the modern chicken and its ancient ancestor, the chickadactyl.

[tivodan1116]

Since the chicken is an actual chicken and the egg is only a probable chicken, and actuality comes before probability, philosophically speaking, chicken came before egg.

And yes, I stole that from "Head of the Class"--- Who remembers that show?

[Chris]

I remember having a crush on the redhead from that show :)

I dont even know the girls name (her real name or her TV name)

[Chris]

ahh all it takes is a little homework:

Khrystyne Haje

Khrystyne Haje

Yep... Still have a crush on her

[xyzer]

If we redefine the egg as a cell(Which most will agree had to be the precursor to development) evolution would gradually define the development of that cell(egg) into a more sophisticated creature.
ergo, something more basic evolved into todays chicken! Preceded the egg/chicken relationship? Designed the chicken so that it would reproduce via an egg hatching process.

[Chris]

well, however many years ago, Something that wasn't entirely a chicken, (probably a red junglefowl) laid an egg and out of that egg came out a chicken that wasn't quite a red junglefowl.

[Kuldeep]

@ZNFYRH

What you say seems possible. But, why and how cell mutation in egg or sperm takes place. Is it the mating male and female get changes in its phsical body as evolutionary changes, which inhernently mutate their reproduction egg and sperm ???

I do not think why and how of it is so simple as postulated by evolutionists !!

[freedom13]

birth of a chicken
YouTube - chicken at birth
Birth of a Chicken

Which came first: the chicken or the egg?@Everything2.com The question of whether the chicken or the egg came first is incredibly old. Hints of the underlying problem appear in works by Plato and Aristotle, and the issue itself is directly addressed by Plutarch. First, the problem needs to be set up properly, to prevent flippant answers that don't really tackle the question. "Dinosaurs laid eggs millions of years before chickens existed, so the egg came first" Not much of an answer, really. Implicit in the question is that we're talking about chicken eggs here. So let's set it up as "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken-egg", if that makes everyone happy "The Bible says that God created animals (see Gen 1:21), so the chicken came first." In addressing the key issues, this isn't a bad response actually. The deeper question - how do we resolve causal loops to origins - is rather neatly solved by saying "We don't. God does, by starting things off." However, it requires a belief in God as the Prime Mover. As many people aren't happy with this, let's skip this answer and press on with the question. "Evolutionary theory tells us that at some point, a non-chicken creature laid an egg which grew into a chicken. This means that the chicken-egg came first." Hmm. This answer begs the question (which doesn't mean what you think, check the writeup). What the person who responds this way has done is assume the answer to motivate the answer, by defining a chicken-egg as "The thing a chicken hatches from". But why not define it as "The thing a chicken lays"? Then the answer to the question, using the evolutionary logic, is that the chicken came first. But we haven't really got anywhere. Either we can get stuck in a Sorites Paradox, arguing about when a chicken becomes a chicken and an egg becomes a chicken-egg, or we pick one of the two arbitrarily, which is much the same as answering the question at random. This avenue seems fruitless "But if the chicken came first then where did the egg come from. And if the egg came first... You've confused me, and you aren't letting me give a good answer!" Aha! Now you're getting it. Whether the chicken or the egg came first doesn't bear answering, it's not that sort of question. Rather, it's used as symbolic of the problem of resolving causal loops. The Creationist and Evolution responses refuse to accept the reality of the case by finding get-outs. That may be the way to go, and that there are no examples of the chicken-and-egg problem in real life. However, they seem to breach no logical rule. A modern example occurs in certain forms of time-travel scenario. So next time someone gives a throwaway answer to this old puzzler, don't let them get away with it.

[gallo]

At the risk of yet another reprimand from the moderators, and since this silly question has been resurrected, I'll take it up again.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Do you have a medical problem that forces you to be this way?

Pointing out your error is not a medical problem.

Do you completely lack the ability to be civil?

I was civil. I merely told you that you were wrong. In fact, I was trying to tell you that your understanding was exceedingly simplistic. Implicit was the suggestion that you might make an effort to learn what you were talking about before you spoke.

I will say it again, then, with different words. It takes a sperm and an egg to create a creature.

But that doesn't make your misunderstanding any more clear. In fact, you are wrong. Some organisms have multiple sexes, while others reproduce by simple division. There are even species that are parthogenic. Do you know what that means?

The creature we are talking about is the modern chicken (MC).

Exactly!

With 0 mutation, an MC sperm and an MC egg make an MC creature.

But that isn't the case. Biological evidence indicates that mutations always occur from one generation to the next.

But at some point, a nonMC sperm and a nonMC egg made an MC creature.

No they didn't. Red Jungle Fowl were provided a secure food source provided by humans. Those that adapted became domesticated. Why is that so hard to understand?

This means that either the sperm or the egg had in it the mutation that resulted in the MC.

Why do you believe that it is only a single mutation in either a single egg or a single sperm? Do you actually have any concept of evolutionary theory? Do you not understand that populations evolve, not individuals?

The egg is only half of the equation. It could not have been a nonMC sperm and an MC egg to make the MC creature, because the egg is only half of it.

Nonsense. Are you not aware that Red Jungle Fowl can still breed with domestic chickens?

The first MC laid the first MC egg. So the chicken came first.

As I said, a silly question it the first place.

Sometimes, gallo, these things are for fun. Being the one who comes in kicking the castle in the sandbox won't validate whatever issues you have in your real life.

Pointing out your lack of understanding has nothing to do with my real life. Why do you think that it is necessary to insult me for pointing out your silliness? How is it that you think that proffering pure ignorance is somehow fun?